​It was not very nice of Donald Trump to describe third world countries as ‘shithole countries’. This was rude and unacceptable language. Tut tut. Naughty Mr Trump. He needs to use more polite language in future. But even when people use rude words it is necessary to examine their argument carefully, and to consider whether there is any truth in it.
 
Mr Trump was attempting, in that popular method of philosophical inquiry known as the bull-in-the-china-shop approach, to identify the analytical links between socialist wealth distribution schemes and economic stagnation. We could call countries which exhibit these schemes ‘poor countries’, as that would be a bit more appropriate than using vulgar words. We can then ask: do socialist wealth redistribution schemes make countries poor? Or, as the President put it:

​These are the sorts of questions that will lead to a better understanding of wealth inequality. The answer does not lie in any single measure such as geographical location or natural resources – many rich countries are poorly endowed with natural resources, and many poor countries sit on rich reserves of gold, diamonds or oil. 

​These intersections are complex. Wealth redistribution schemes attempt to bypass economic complexity, based on the presumption that there is no need to examine complex economic considerations if we can simply raise taxes and redistribute wealth. The presumption is that wealth redistribution will have no adverse impact on productivity, a presumption that in turn rests on failure to understand how markets function.
 
Many might perhaps feel that it doesn’t matter how markets function, nor need we be concerned with implications for wealth production, because helping the poor is a moral imperative. Wealth transfers are simply the right thing to do. As long as rich folk exist, we can and should keep on taxing them. It will be fine.

​And if we run out of rich people to tax, well then we run out. It’s not the worst thing that could happen. The whole world may end up being an impoverished Third World, but that would come with two attractive moral advantages. First, that we’re all in it together which is always a nice feeling. Misery loves company. Second, we can draw comfort in our stagnation and decay from the certainty that we are moral people who had the courage to equalise the world. 

In his 1949 lectures titled Freedom under the Law Lord Denning describes ‘the heritage of freedom’ as ‘the greatest heritage of all.’ The lectures highlight the importance of law in safeguarding freedom, especially individual liberty or personal freedom. Lord Denning defines personal freedom as ‘the freedom of every law-abiding citizen to think what he will, to say what he will, and to go where he will on his lawful occasions without let or hindrance from any other persons.’ Personal freedom prevails over all other rights and interests.

All men are equal in virtue of their humanity. Black or white, rich or poor. We are all equally entitled to legal, political and civil rights. We are equally entitled to fundamental freedoms such as life and liberty. The challenge now is how to defend this ideal in a world of unequal life outcomes. In truth, we will never have equal wealth, beauty or esteem, and this leads socialists to believe that the ideal of equality should be abolished.
​

An academic philosopher has been cancelled for stating that civilisation is for everyone. The idea of 'civilisation' has become very sensitive for those who fear that they are not regarded by others as sufficiently civilised. They suspect that others regard them as uncivilised. Oh dear. Soon 'civilisation' will join the list of banned words, along with 'nature', 'humanity', 'reason', 'rationality', 'logic' and 'debate'. All these banned ideas are linked. To be civilised is to participate in society based on reasonable interactions with others. If we denounce reason and rationality, and resort instead to mob rule, cancelling those with whom we disagree, trying to get them fired, then we denounce civilisation.

Why bother to work hard, devoting years to learning a skill or trade, when instead you could go on a riot for social justice and put pressure on the government to give you a bunch of free money? Sitting indoors engaging in productive activity seems dull and tedious compared to going out on the streets to do social justice - meeting other cool people, throwing a few missiles at the police, setting buildings on fire, looting and general rioting.

​Rioting is very exciting, and as an extra bonus you get your 15 minutes of fame when they feature you on the evening news. There you are, running through the streets in your combat gear, fist in the air, weeping copious tears while demanding your justice and your reparations! Nice. Breaking windows and mounting barricades is also great for putting pressure on rich people to pay you protection-money hoping you'll go away and leave their stuff alone. 

​Music departments across all universities have banned the reading of sheet music. This is to decolonise our syllabus and keep all our communities safe from cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is a non-crime race hate offence. It happens when people from non-Western cultures attempt to read sheet music, when it's not even their culture. In order to do apartheid 2.0 properly everyone needs to stay in their own cultural lane, cease dabbling in other people's cultures.

Moreover sheet music raises an important equal opportunities issue. If you can't read music by the time you arrive at university to study music, it's unlikely that you will ever catch up with your classmates who've been reading music since before they were born. Maybe their mothers played Mozart to them in utero, which is not fair on others. So it's best if sheet music is banned. That way it's fair for everyone who needs to be given an equal opportunity to acquire a music degree even though they have no formal musical training.