What do I want this Australian election to achieve?

Share |

I was never going to get what I wanted from this election, so I don't vote. What I am looking from this election is education. I want voters to recognise that:

1. The major parties are only interested in political power and that they have no respect for facts, honesty, principles or accoountability

2. The minor parties lack depth of policy and principle, and will similarly be corrupted by the process, after you give them any power they can muster.

3. Democracy suxs. The problem with it is that it rewards those who countenance fear, extortion and vested interests to achieve what they want. A 'tyranny of the majority' is just as loathsome as the 'tyranny of a minority'.

4. Voting is sanctioning extortion, expropriation and coercion. Don't give those exponents of coercion that power or legitimacy. Its not really even legitimacy, so in no objective world does a majority view constitute a moral victory....it is extortion. i.e. A group symbolically arguing that they represent the majority. Actually they know they don't, which is why they always concede to any radical or vocal minority. They don't want the 'fickle majority' to collapse. Democracy is not so stable as you think..why? Because its arbitrary. Its based not on principles, but numbers.

5. The only moral system is a meritocracy where everyone is able to participate in a state legislature where reason is the standard of value. You don't get a vote, you get an opinion and a counter-argument. Arguments are integrated by analysts, and their findings are scrutinised by vested interests, and when the debate can go no further, the legislature sanctions their view. If they cannot agree, then they have no common interest, or one side concedes temporarily, say if there is a greater threat like the Chinese invading.

6. The only proper role of government is to facilitate the operation of a legislature, and even that can be performed online. There ought to be an executive, but there is no reason why they need be elected, because they will not have executive power.

7. The government will have no authority to 'initiate the use of force'. The role of government is simply to facilitate trade, i.e. Contracts are designed by the legislature, awarded to private police forces based on certain criteria.

The right of government to coerce is the start of incipient fascism. It starts as libertarianism, descends into liberalism, then eventually full-blown collectivism (i.e. Dark Ages). People will say that this is not possible. They are wrong. They do not understand that all good motives are personal and rational, where counter-parties are protected by law. Only government facilitates the achievement of illegitimate values by coercion. Sound idealistic? That is because you are accustomed to living in a society where you don't matter. Someone's strategic interests extinguish your interests. That is not possible in a political system based on principles. The arbitrary 'statutory' law developed under democracy makes the march of government, tax and accounting loopholes, etc descending into a sea of bureaucracy that serves no one. You will wonder in decades how you ever reached that point. By then my books will have been outlawed. Maybe the 'sedition' law which has not been used in Australia since 1973. Shouldn't be there, but no political bothered to use it. It has its applications if there is a 'political emergency'.

Your protections against fascism are:

1. Your vote - Useless if government controls the education system and the media has compliant interests. You will always be stifled by the majority of ignorant, unprincipled, unthinking, voters. The media supports only the two major parties, so no prospect of a real choice.

2. Your senate - Recognised as a failure because the two major parties control it. Geographic representation for minorities doesn't really represent any minority since we are more or less a fully integrated market. This was not the case in 1901. An easy way to achieve freedom would be to open the senate up to anyone who wants a voice. Make it an electronic assembly. The ultimate form of accountability. The major parties will not be interested.

3. The judiciary - Well if we are talking changes in the Constitution to get fair and ethical government, we are talking about the role of the High Court justices. They are safe, politically-aware, even safe. Oh, and they are paid and appointed by the two major parties. So this system was designed to serve the two major parties.

4. Civil rights groups - Based on my observations no one cares about them. People seem indifferent to principles of justice or the suffering of others. I guess they are suffering themselves.

5. International influence: Well foreign governments are just as maligned. They all follow the British 'subjugation' of the Queens 'subjects'. The developing world is worse in terms of values, even if there system of injustice is woefully unsophisticated. In many respects you are freer in those countries. i.e. In the Philippines, the govt tax receipts are just 16% of GDP, compared to our 30%, and a lot of people don't even pay tax. Compliance is bad. Understandable given the corruption. The UN is another international force, but since the bureaucracies of contributing countries appoint members and employees to it, and they are funded by the 'West', such agencies as the IMF, WB and UN really don't represent you, they represent your government. They will challenge the rights of the poor in Iran, etc because they states are 'opponents', but it will tread softly when it comes to repudiating the British dishonoring the Treaty of Waitangi with the Maoris in NZ. It put in an appearance recently when Maoris were upset about a cancelled agreement, but that was to quash opposition, not to really correct injustices. Its all a facade. They have no intention of giving rights to Maoris for self-determination. Because they know 'white' Europeans will want rights next. That is why the policy was dropped. Perhaps their naivety shows that their immorality is really just ineptness. They really have no idea...like over-sized, over-powered children. They could not orchestrate a conspiracy if they tried. They are not smart enough.

6. Your right to protest: Expecting a revolution? I would not discount it, but it would be a mess because there would be no process for change or reform. There would be chaos. A lot of people trying to lead, but no one listening or accepting others.

Is that a justification for democracy? No, it is a justification for preparation and thinking. Get an education. Understand these issues. I am writing a number of books on these issues. It will take me years, however I don't have a monopoly on knowledge. Learn about politics, economics, psychology, finance & banking, the legal system, history and philosophy. An appreciation of these issues is a precursor for an acceptance of a morality-based libertarian system. There is a moral foundation for capitalism...its just that no one talks about it.

Liberal democracy is a compromise between two competing value systems, which always results in a shift towards fascism. Why? Statutory law displaces 'relatively rational' common law. Democracy is numbers and selling out the minority...more so since the senate does not work, and the majority parties look the same, and MPs preserve party loyalty to keep self-serving power.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Analysis of others voting behaviour

Share |

This is an opportunity for me to correct some misconceptions about Australian politics.'

Quote from Adultmale

"I will probably vote coalition, that is if there is no independent standing.

I sincerely hope Julia Gillard does not become our next prime minister. Have you noticed how she never answers any questions put to her? No matter what the question is, she just replies with meaningless rethoric and slogans. She never gives any detail and never commits to anything. The lies and deceit slide out of her mouth as smooth as silk.

Tony Abbot on the other hand couldn't tell a lie to save himself. I think he is geniune in what he says and can be believed. He has religious faith which means he has a moral foundation to his life. To him lies and deceit are just plain wrong. Gillard has no such moral foundation and I believe she will lie and deceive without compunction.

It turns out now that she was telling Kevvy that he had her full support just the day before she knifed him in the back. Do you want someone like that has prime minister? I certainly don't.

Well, I suggest the Liberal Democratic Party for a libertarian perspective for the Senate. I've not noticed how Gillard lies, but I seldom meet honest people in any walk of life. She is no doubt a buffoon who will be pushed aside by the unions after she wins, replaced by Martin Ferguson perhaps".

Source: Political Forum.com

How do you equate religion and morality. Religion is actually the renunciation of morality because it is the renunciation of self-interest. That is why Christians cannot be trusted because they profess an anti-life value system. That is why in opposition he can retain a pretense of moral righteousness, but in government, he will quickly descend into a "Bush-like disaster"Honesty? Honesty to a contradiction? I don't think so. No doubt he self-righteously tries like many Christians, but it will be a lame effort when he is given the power of government. Look how he persecuted Hanson. He's a fascist like George Bush. I actually think Gillard has a moral foundation like Abbot, but they are both utter collectivists. Australia has a very fascist choice this time round. All the pragmatists have been choked. Probably because in an emergency (i.e. recession) people seem to descend towards idealism, out its the wrong ideal, i.e. fascist/collectivists. This is why unprincipled, pragmatic business people who endorse govt stimulus always lead us to this point. Unless we have small govt, we are destined to repeat old lessons. Integrity is not enough...as its just an alliance to a delusion in their case, whether God or socialism. Religious piety is the greatest rout ever perpetrated. We need a respect for facts or objectivity....not with a system based on democracy (i.e. the tyranny of the majority).

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Further power privatisation in NZ

Share |

Power privatisation has been a huge failure in NZ. The reason is that it was performed by self-serving politicians. So we are asked whether Trustpower should be sold? The answer is that it may as well be, since the market does not function efficiently anyway. Why is that? Well, not all markets are competitive. In fact if you structure markets the 'right way', they can be utterly 'cozy', real 'sleepers'. So that is the nature of the NZ power market. Expect power prices to rise by about 2-3% more than the rate of inflation until there is some political opposition, and market reform is adopted, or perhaps when coal seam gas is readily available.

There are two huge problems for competition in NZ:

1. The lack of competition in gas supply - its another oligopoly

2. The huge disparity in the competitiveness of the partially state-owned players

3. Most importantly, the disparity in operating costs between these players

This last issue is critical. Some 70% of NZ's hydro stations produce power at almost zero cost. There is 20% of capacity which carries a fuel (coal, gas) cost, so they are high cost base load producers, which always operate because they cannot afford (technically or financially) to stop. So this places a minimum price under power supplies. More importantly, at peak times the hydro producers can charge what they want. Why? Because how can new generators compete with old, fully-depreciated plants. For this reason, any new plants added merely fill 'gaps' in the market demand, they never result in competition or lower prices for the consumer. It does however result in efficient resource allocation, so that is a good thing. I guess you could argue its good if you want the country to develop more renewable (wind, solar) because it funds that. But now that its private, expect that those surpluses will go to government and shareholders. Utility users might be better off buying shares rather than complaining. I guess that is the appealing side of it. You can always profit from the utilities advantage. Mind you, the investment bankers and government got the best of you on privatisation in several respects:

1. The market structure robbed you with hidden 'taxes'. Kind of like the vested contracts used by the Victorian utilities during their privatisation. By structuring a 'consumer-unfriendly' market, the government was able to get a higher price for these assets, but that was with the prospect that consumers would be paying higher electricity charges, despite all the savings that would result.

2. The investment bankers were paid huge fees to rip you off. You may also have paid a huge premium for the shares too if you bought them in the float....so you were a 'jipped' shareholder as well? Too bad.

A lesson in not to trust governments....with anything.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The tyranny of the majority

Share |

I picked this off some forum I am participating in:

Originally Posted by Royd Bogan Common law isn't able to function by itself in a complex society. Statutory law is necessary.

Really? Would you care to prove that point. I would suggest it depends on how you want it to function. If you want it to expropriate funds from people...yes, true enough, it does not allow that.

Its why we have it....to expropriate. We went from the tyranny of kings, to the tyranny of 'lords' (minority), to the tyranny of the majority. Next is the tyranny of the climate facade. Then we would have gone full circle, back to the tyranny of the 'lord' dictator. Why? Because principles were not considered practical.

Source: http://www.politicalforum.com/australia/139231-bill-rights-we-need-one-6.html#post2768553

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The right to vote in Australia

Share |

I wonder if this is true...learned it on some forum...

"Voting isn't compulsory in Australia: you only need to have your name crossed off, no one can actually force you to vote. Once your name is crossed off you can not be fined".

I have to question it because the democrat who made the remark also said:

"Anyone who doesn't vote has no right to complain about how the country is being run".

to which I say:

What crap. Only an idealistic in democracy would believe that. Democracy is a system to legitimatise coercion; against which everyone can rightly complain, as long as they don't sanction coercion....because that would be utter hypocrisy.

How could you complain when you sanctioned the process, their methods.

The "tyranny of the majority" is little better than "tyranny of the minority". Better only in that its more stable. Too stable. Its still a slavery. You have to laugh. Women thought they were being emancipated in the 1960s. hehe.

They became slaves to the govt as well. Now the govt gets near-twice the productivity from you slaves. Now they want you to work until your 70yo, and you think you are on a good deal. he he

In fact what you are sanctioning is the eventual collapse of the nation under a weight of debt. Some 'New Deal' which will see the same people leaders in a new scheme. We will be even closer to fascism then, because you will be so used to sacrificing your happiness to serve some politicians wet dream, that you will not know which way is up. We will be in the 2nd 'Dark Ages', though it will look different. Technological innovation would have slumped because you will be paying 70% tax in order to fund a national emergency, like a shortage of basic services like drinking water. It hasn't happened for 7000 years, but they will say its because of climate change. You will believe it though because they control the media and academia.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

New contender - the Climate Sceptics Party

Share |

I have some sympathy for the Climate Sceptics Party for these reasons:

1. They appear to be the only party which embraces critical thinking, which makes them the sole party embracing objectivity as a standard of value, even if they don't spell out an epistemology, or deeper philosophical convictions.

2. They actually are the only party value which identifies some healthy values, grounded in science, as opposed to the other parties which dispense sweeping ethical or political concepts with no basis.

This party of course lacks depth because it lacks resources, and it lacks breadth. At least however it is targeting a particular demographic - the rural voters. This makes it more goal orientated than the others.

Climate change is a big issue this year, so a party which stands for opposition to a major piece of current legislation has to be a positive force in the Senate. For this reason, I would be inclined to vote for this party.....if indeed I believed in voting. I'd prefer to educate Australians about the perils of slavery.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

New contender - the Secular Party of Australia

Share |

This is a new party I have not seen before. It's name is the Secular Party of Australia, and of course their agenda is the separation of church from state, and presumably church pastors from young boys. The problem with this agenda is their lack of a comprehensive intellectual framework of ideas, and most particularly there focus upon religion. For the life of me, I don't see the attraction for people in defining a value system based on a negative - the non existence of a God. I thus disparage this party because they ought to have a positive value system. Their failure to offer one means they have a lot of growing up to do, and are thus not real candidates for this election...but that never stopped the main parties.

Sorry Australians...as you already knew....you have another dismal choice this year. But didn't you always know...democracy was always about the pretense of choice...without actually giving you one. That is why we have compulsory voting...so they have the pretense of legitimacy, even if you were forced to sanction it. Good luck with that!

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The ambivalent calling of libertarians

Share |

Having recommended readers either:

1. Vote for a libertarian party

2. Decide not to vote

3. Vote for anyone but the two major parties

I return to the conclusion that you are really between a rock and a hard place. Maybe you should all simply set up your own political party. God knows there are plenty of other cowboys doing in the same - in Qld no less. I decided to pay a call to the Liberal Democratic Party, which professes to be a libertarian party. What you realise with such parties is that they are defined by negative values. There is a perfectly good philosophical base to libertarianism values, but these guys will have nothing to do with ideas....as I will demonstrate in this following discussion. They ended up burying their heads in the sand...which I guess is more polite than what the main parties would do to me. They would of course smear me, and if I became a significant threat maybe my carcass would wash up on a beach somewhere....like Harold Holt's. Anyway, back to the conversation. I tried to be positive...but I always seem to end up being disappointed.

My initial inquiry - as 'shouganai1'

Hi guys, I am a libertarian...with a philosophical base...something like Ayn Rand. Any thoughts to putting some meat on your policy so I can decide if I'm interested. Might be interested in participating. Gave you a qualified plug on my website. [Now its qualified]. Not much on voting myself because its sanctioning coercion, which is what democracy does. Do you want to wait for the majority to decide you are worthy of personal autonomy? It might be your greatest obstacle to getting support. I think that is where a Libertarian club has greater longevity than a party which rears its head every 4 years, and then is forgotten.
Anyway. Great that you are trying something!

TimQuilty

The Liberal Democrats have been set up as a moderate libertarian party. We aim to be more A.C.T. then LbertariaNZ... Our minimum goal is to be more pro-freedom on any given issue then any other party in Australia. The party is deliberately moderate, because we do plan to get people elected. Many members hold libertarian positions stronger then those of the party.

We think we will do something worthwhile for liberty if we get senators elected. We won't be bringing about the dawn of Libertopia in my lifetime, but then again, neither will anyone else. Within a compulsory preferential voting system (Lib-Dems support voluntary voting, of course) the cost to more radical Libertarians of supporting us is quite low.

shouganai1

I think that 'extreme' libertarian position would be less intimidating to you if you stopped labelling it as 'moderate' vs 'extreme' perspective because those terms serve no one. 'Is the policy consonant with the facts of reality or not' ought to the the standard. If it is, then its defensible. I do however recognise that the electorate is far removed from the libertarian view. That is why the current political system (which you have to work with) is not the best forum to educate....so yep, if you want to hold minority positions in a system which sponsors and sanctions coercion....you are in the right place. But please don't disparage libertarianism as extreme...even if 'extremely factual'. You can only set the argument back.

Jess

Tim's right, Shouganai i understand where your coming from, as I'm an admirer Ayn Rand myself but she is extreme and thats why she's such an acclaimed academic. She is the absolute epitome of individualism just as Hitler and Stalin were the epitome of totalitarianism. She had flaws just like anybody else. There is always a balance to be had and I sincerely believe that the LDP has or has very nearly struck that balance right :)

shouganai1

Jes, your response does not address my points, and are self-refuting. If you are an admirer of Ayn Rand, is it because she is an extremists, or because she has coherent arguments on certain issues for which you are sympathetic. I think you are forming into the trap of your opponents by using terms like 'extremist' which is a smear, not a principle or defensible position. It is used by unthinking people to defend compromises. Let me illustrate. I invite you to raise a 'balanced' perspective to any public policy matter, and I will debunk it.

Actually Rand was not an academic, nor liked much by them generally. She was a novelist who studied philosophy. Perhaps because academics tend to be supported by undiscerning public funding. I am quite sure she had flaws, which is why I did not depict myself as a carbon copy of her. Her flaws are not the issue...I raised a conceptual argument, so personal attributes are irrelevant.

Are you guys trying to redefine libertarianism or something. Most libertarians are for small government. Are you backing away from that? Rand to me is simply libertarianism with a philosophical base to justify her arguments. She is like you argue on your website a moral libertarian who "believes that free markets and individual freedom should be preferred because they are more moral political systems".

In fact your argument here is not strictly correct. The next section fails to justify the legitimacy of self-defense, so you need to say 'initiation of force' is repudiated. You need to be strictly correct if you want to overcome strong cynicism.

TimQuilty

To a large chunk of those who even know we exist, the Liberal Democratic Party is seen as pushing a dangerously radical agenda. Anything more will just make us a joke in the political marketplace. We're here to win seats and push a freedom agenda. If someone has a different plan to advance the libertarian cause in Australia, I'll probably support it. If someone wants to start a more radical party, I'll certainly join it, though I'll keep running for the Lib-Dems.

When I say that many of our members hold stronger libertarian views then the party, I include myself. The party founder was an anarcho-capitalist. But your only quick route to a libertarian society will be sea-steading. Failing that, a moderate libertarian party is all the people might possibly swallow at this point in time.

Personally I couldn't care less if I fail to dot the t's and cross the i's when I set out my libertarian argument. I have a right to be free, so does everyone else, and that is all the system I need to construct to support my world-view. People arguing A-is-A just turns me off, and I always skip the ending monologue when I read Atlas Shrugged. But if it works for you, that is great. I just think we need to spend less time fighting our fellow-travelers and more focusing on the statists.

shouganai1

Tim, you are trying to achieve something great. The fact that you think its blatantly self-evident, makes you impatient to argue the point. You acknowledge that your views are a digression from the electorate, so that ought to impart on you some knowledge - that "I have a great deal to learn or the public does". Clearly, I think you are closer to the truth, but your sole concern is politics. Thus you are dismissing the whole philosophical base for your arguments and the electorates. If you do a little temper tantrum here, you will not understand the reasons why you and the public believe what you do. The reasons are more fundamental than politics. Pursue this discussion and you will get it. Rest assured I am 50-years advanced than Rand, and I'm less long-winded.

I addressed your fears about radicalising your policies above....in my initial post I questioned why your policies are not more concrete bound, and thus more realistic. I wonder how you intend to win over Australians without an education. How many frustrated libertarians do you think are out there? Are you intending to coerce liberals into becoming libertarians? The sea change needed comes back to my point about education, and differentiating yourself from the other parties, which alienate minorities. Don't alienate. Education is a very powerful basis for engaging and retaining patronage.

Your last paragraph sounds like a self-righteous child. You don't care to understand the nature of your values. Then you cannot care about any concerns or objections that the electorate can have. It conveys a lack of respect for reason and objectivity. This ultimately leads to statism. You have the same underlying flaws as the statists, your contradiction is just at a different level, so you are just an affirmation of statism.

The issue is not whether you think you ought to be free...the issue is whether you can convince the majority of Australians who think you have no entitlement to be so, or think you already are. That is an intellectual debate you cannot avoid. Here we are in a recession caused by govt intervention, and people want more intervention, or are indifferent to it, and you want to dispense with ideas. Don't you think you're on the statists side at this more fundamental level?

I can understand why you might skip the 'intellectual core' of Atlas Shrugged if you repudiate rational arguments for action. I might add that I did not stop at Ayn Rand 25 years ago when I first read her books. I read most of what she published, then I studied taped lecture courses by her colleagues Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff, and then I started analysing markets, alternative philosophies, studying law, politics and science to apply those ideas. Some of her ideas did not stand, but her core contribution 'her theory of values' is unique and special.

'A is A' turns you off because you can't relate it to your purpose or your knowledge. You would be fighting your members less if you had a set of ideas which united you, or more importantly a respect for facts which transcended your differences. If you had such a respect for objectivity, your intellectual base would grow stronger. The alternative is to adopt the coercive value system of your contemporaries. Its a shame, because you guys have this great forum. Love how it integrates with Facebook and Gmail, etc. Nice!

shouganai1 - no response to my last email

Hmm...this is interesting...A political party which buries its head in the sand. I thought political parties are supposed to be in the business of conflict resolution. Some honesty and courage please. Is there no one in the party who can respond to this thread?

Want to know more about the Liberal Democratic Party, you can go to www.ldp.org.au. Hard to believe such a small group of people can be so arrogant so soon. At least you can say they are not in it for the money or the power....it must be for the naivety.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Gillard offering green bribes

Share |

Who could argue with green tax credits for business? Certainly business in general will love it. The mining industry will hate it because they don't get subsidies, they get taxes instead. The people will love it because they get to feel warm knowing there is a global warming crisis unfolding. Even if there is no global warming - its better to be safe than vulnerable. Right?

Actually wrong. The problem with politicians is that they appeal to the lowest, most vile qualities in man. Your lack of intellect. I can't blame fear because it is human nature to respond to fear. But it is how people deal with fear that concerns me, and it ought to concern you. There are several ways people deal with fear:

1. Evade responsibility - like shifting costs (taxes on miners) to others (subsidies on energy users). Complicated government only makes it easier for people to evade responsibility, because they argue 'Oh but I paid my taxes'...'sure but there is a net deficit between your payments and your benefits'. This is why big governments are a curse, and a lack of principle will ultimately lead small governments back to big. So we need a 'principled solution'.

2. Evade facts of reality - like business saying there is no real problem with no counter-argument, and then just thinking that they can use their political power to disarm government. It does not work. Higher taxes on miners is the consequence. Educate the unthinking or perish, and the issue is not solely taxes, global warming, democracy...it goes even deeper.

Let us consider the latest policy initiative by the Australian Labor Party. They are offering $1 billion in subsidies for energy saving initiatives for certain industries like hotels and commercial buildings. The problem with this is that business is already in the 'business of saving money', so if it was already justified, then it ought to have been spent. If it wasn't justified, or even compelling, then the expense ought to be deferred until better technology or process systems justify it.

Another problem is the tendency for government to shift the country away from broad market principles. It does this by enacting specific or 'targeted' industry policy which benefits some at the expense of others. This in itself causes a mis-allocation of resources. We also see the a plethora of funds going into a certain industry just drives money offshore, as local service providers don't have the immediate capacity to service these industries, and prices go up because demand artificially exceeds supply. The implication is that you get shoddy installations (as with the Home Insulation Scheme by Peter Garrett). Labor does not learn, and it doesn't because voters are indifferent to where their money goes....just as you would expect of any common slave with no control over their lives. P.S. Labor represents more slavery. Liberals represent 'steady-as-you-go' slavery.

So the next effect of this policy will be premature expense on energy-savings, a rush of money overseas (i.e. a higher deficit than there otherwise would be), but it will help convince a lot of liberals who don't think that they have a responsive party who cares. Oh, it will also result in thousands of more rules, another hundred specific exemptions, more legislation, more complexity. Because they are arbitrary policies no one will understand the implications, so there will need to be adjustments, more exemptions.

Gillard will however be able to lower population growth because there will be a brain drain of smart Australians overseas. She will offset this will higher immigration numbers. The paradox being that Asians escaping collectivism in their own country will find that they face more punitive laws here. They will however appreciate the nice beaches, cuddly kangaroos. Their kids in a generation however might wonder why they ever left. There are already a great many Australians living in 'undeveloped' Asia, and you might think its the pretty girls, but its really something more....its the relatively freedom from intrusive and arbitrary government. You no longer know where you stand when government arbitrarily imposes taxes and subsidies. Ask shareholders in miners whether they were warned about a tax on their investments. How does one plan for that? If you think this is good for your country....you don't read enough.

The positive aspect is that Gillard is not bringing forward the Emissions Trading Scheme. The whole concept will be dropped in 2013, when it is realised that it was never humanity, it was always solar flares driving the variation in the globe's climate.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Share |

When I think about what is most important in the world, I find that personal efficacy is the most compelling value. We tend to think that the rich have the easiest time of it. The reality however is that the poor and destitute have the greatest prospects of being successful than the rich. The reason is that a poor person has no where to go but up. If you are starving, you are going to invest all your effort into personal advancement. People do not develop because they don't know how, they don't develop because people assume the responsibility that they should have borne.

Some people develop despite their comfortable lives. Many millionaires develop not because of necessity but because of good habits. This person may have been a success with our without limbs. People will look at this handicapped mother and think she is special because she is raising a child despite being handicapped, but such is the 'mother of invention'. If you have a sense of personal efficacy. We can have that modelled for us, but if we are poor, we are unlikely to have developed that skill, so we need some destitution in order to develop it.

The reason the poor are poor and will stay poor, is not because people didn't care enough to help them; not because no one gave them a chance, but because people did. People survive because of others, but they excel without them. The only thing you give others is validation. When you give them charity you deny them opportunity and in the process you peddle a false sense of value which can only hinder their development.

Think about that when you vote on the expansion of the welfare state in this coming election, and the call for more taxes. Saving grace or tyranny.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Are greenies good for the environment?

Share |

In a 'greenies world' we would see no development, no population growth, and thus no increase in pressure on the world's forests or increases in the concentration of atmospheric CO2. The problem however is that unthinking greenies are succumbing to the appeal of governments who utilise their deluded and misguided ideas to make all types of demands upon the productive end of the economy.

Consider the policy of reducing the consumption of hydrocarbons, whether coal or natural gas. It has resulted in the pursuit of more renewal options like wood waste, biofuels and geothermal. The problem with some of these options is that, whilst they might reduce CO2 consumption, they have other impacts on other areas, some of which are equally precious to environmentalists. i.e. Consider rainforests. The biofuels revolution has pushed up the demand for grains, and thus lands to grow them. This has displaced existing food production in the West, and resulted in developing countries clearing large tracts of forest in order to develop more food production capacity, as well as biofuel capacity.

Greedy capitalists will of course get the blame for their short-sighted actions, but the reality is that the greenies would have failed to adopt their ideas, which are misguided in themselves, but equally distortive when you consider their impact.

For more tips on how to be a well behaved environmentalist, see my global warming blog.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Is voting worth it?

Share |

Each Australian is given the opportunity to vote in an election for representation in an electorate with about 60-80,000 other citizens, who might be smarter, wiser, wealthier, morally or technically, or financially superior than him, or not. Are they all equal? If so, in what way? And does it matter?

Why are we all tied to each other? Centuries ago, we aligned our interests with others in order to protect ourselves. Now we are able to use the political system to extort concessions from others. The tyranny of the majority has been enabled by our political system. And you want to sanction this system by voting?

Even though it is compulsory to vote the government never actually enforces the law. The law is really only there to give legitimacy to the process....which I will argue is illegitimate.

Would you care to discuss/debate this topic with me?

Australian election - does it matter?

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Vote Liberal Democratic Party

Share |

I have no intention of voting in the next 2010 Australian election. It will however not stop me from advising people to either snub the whole process which is your sanctioning of a immoral, coercive, unreasonable form of fascism which is a repudiation of your interests, and your self-worth.

Many people see voting as the only way they can make a difference. I can understand that. In the USA only 50% of people vote compared to Australia's 95% of Australians. That disparity is because Americans are 'free' to vote, but Australians confront an ugly paradox of being "forced to vote", that is 'forced to make a choice". Incidentally the Australian Electoral Commission does not release the number of registered voters, such that we might determine who is not registered. It is fair to say that all are snubbing the system. Some might have emigrated for financial or family reasons, and some might be shacked up in Thailand, living an alternative life....probably because they hate Australian politics.

If you are adamant that voting is the way to improve our society, and in the context of Australia, it probably is, because others are forced to give legitimacy, then I think it makes sense to vote for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). They are a libertarian party according to their principles.

I do not endorse these people, I do not know them. I can only read what is on their website. They might sell out like everyone else. But I would think if they have any power it will be related to their 'small government' policy, and that has to be a good start. My principles are a bit more philosophical than their 'superficial' philosophy, which deals only with political concepts. Maybe they want to keep it simple for you simple folk. They actually still believe in parliamentary democracy. Oh well! I personally want to impress upon you my integrity and the breadth of my knowledge, because by doing so I can show that I have an answer for almost everything, and that I have integrity, and yes that 'philosophy, principles and integrity' are practical values, which you can have confidence in. But don't be surprised if they are into extortion as well on the path to freedom....if they ever get there. It might be like university...an investment in your future if you stay out of the bar long enough to finish. It takes cognitive discipline. A minority has a better chance than a majority because minorities can empathy with our subjugation so long as they are victim of the common tyranny.

I suggest this group to slightly improve your 'blind donkey' chances of getting a better result than with other candidates. This system gives you no accountability. By the next election, this party might be voting with the Liberals. Maybe they totally discredit the principles upon which they are founded. Maybe they are narcissists like me....maybe they are Liberals in drag. Take a risk...for the sake of freedom from fascism.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Tyranny of the minority - this time its the miners and their investors

Share |

This election ought to be a referendum on the rights of the minority. Unfortunately neither party offers much in the way of credibility on this issue. The rights of the government to impose its arbitrary will on the people goes unchallenged. For years now I have highlighted the lack of consideration given to regulation of small listed companies, including miners. Basically the government does not provide ASIC with sufficient resources to regulate disclosure and market manipulation, so the small companies, which are easiest to manipulate are rife with such practices because they are illiquid, with a small number of shareholders. The issue arises because of control of information. The problem arises because the number of shareholders affected is considered too small.

This is why the government, after announcing the proposed Resource Rent Tax, only dealt with the largest corporations. e.g. Rio Tinto, BHP and Fortescue Metals. It has failed to deal with the plethora of other prospective mining companies with iron ore resources under various stages of development in Australia. It actually involves a huge number of coal and iron ore projects. The number of investors in small mining companies is also huge. I suggest the government is undermining the impact that their shareholders can make. Consider that you hold your shareholdings in BHP (more probably) through a superannuation fund. Many mum's and dad's however like to invest in smaller stocks, and with so few resource funds at this end of the market, most moms and dad's invest directly in these companies. The implication is that miners will be able to send out criticism of the government policy just prior to the election. That is a pretty powerful marketing.

I personally don't like these companies having that type of unaccountable power. But its justified by their cause, and its the basis of our incredibly silly political system. There ought to be no need for small mining companies to lobby separately from the majors. There ought to be no need for large miners to lobby separately from all other companies. This is the result of arbitrary, segmented, rule. This is what we would expect of the Nazis. Divide and rule. Having won over the major miners, the government thinks it will win against the small miners because they have less power. I think they are making a strategic plunder! Stupid system.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Share |

Our parliament was never designed to achieve the optimum outcome. It was developed in simpler times, but also less sophisticated times. The history of our constitution does not start in 1901 with Federation. It started in 1100AD with the Magna Carta. What happened at the end of the 1800s was that Australia's Founding Fathers took a bad idea and gave it the hope of a better future by making a few amendments to a system which had long applied in the USA, the UK and elsewhere. So what is wrong with this system? Well we have alluded to a great many of them in our blogs over the last few years:

1. Reason is not the standard of value: There is no assurance that politicians will think, or preserve some respect for facts, or objectivity. They are free to place their own interests above those of the country, which ought to equate to the protection of the sanctity of individual rights; but for pragmatic reasons, principles of rights are discarded in favour of collective interests including lobbyists and alligned interests.

2. The lack of representation: Representation is really a monumental myth and it ought to be dispelled. There is no prospect of your local MP representing you, i.e. embodying your values, and those of your 60,000-odd electoral neighbours besides. Any comprise between your values is also invalid if we believe in an intelligible universe, because its a departure from reality. We would therefore hope for a reversion to reason, a respect for truth. The role of the MP would thus to equate their views with facts, and in the same instance to raise their electorate to the same standard. i.e. Lobbyists would approach a party or MP and attempt to sway them. This happens of course. But these lobbyists don't bring reasons to bare, they bring the coercive force of money (in the form of campaign funds for or against the party) or numbers (in terms of voting members for or against the party).

3. The lack of choice: Another problem of course is the entrenched duopoly of the two major parties. The problem with this is of course the lack of competition. This is not simply a problem if both the parties agree, it results in a false dichotomy on a great many issues because of a lack of variety on a range of issues. This has occurred for many reasons, including the fact that we have a highly centralised form of state administration. We are not alone in this respect. There has been a great deal of conformity with reflect to the style of political governance. This is not desirable. The track record of democracy is not so good that we ought to be discarding alternatives.

4. Tyranny of the majority: Just prior to this election we witnessed the cynical and unprincipled way in which government conducts itself. We say a government adopt a plan to tax mining companies in Australia 40% on the resources they mine. Their argument of course is that these are state resources. The fact however is that these companies have already leased these assets on certain terms. These licences have been bought, sold or developed on the basis of certain political assumptions. The purpose of our government is to protect rights, not violate them with arbitrary impositions. How can miners or investors have any confidence in such a system of arbitrary power. This is what defines the Nazis. This election ought to be an election on the tyranny of the government's majority. I would suggest to you that the majority does not even know the implication of their government's decisions. We have seen Labor do a deal with the major iron ore miners. The people might see this as a desirable compromise. But government ought to be about principles, not compromises...lest we be ensconced by thieves who are only happy to expropriate 50% of your health. The Australian government already expropriates 30% of your wealth. It started with 6% a century ago...and its working quickly towards the 50% rate of Europe.

Unless people apply some judgement to see the strategic and moral implications of their actions, we are quickly going to see a move to fascism. There will be no one to protect your interests. An alignment of fascist 'democratic' regimes around the world could entrench these risks.

You might ask - how would any voter allow that? The same way that Europeans do it...by abandoning their minds. Its not a new concept. The Dark Ages was a time of wholesale collectivism. In the current era its being enabled by a combination of psychological repression and compartmentalisation (i.e. cognitive specialisation) which sees you as a voter suspend responsibility.

The Senate was intended to protect the minority from such tyranny. The problem was the ability of parties to consolidate power, but also the subjective basis of political discourse. Our constitution, as well as other countries, makes no explicit requirement for people to be reasonable. The parliament thus becomes a forum not for reasoned debate but rather a pretense of it. It is a forum for legitimatising extortion. i.e. The majority over the minority, with the government always playing the middleman. The problem with this framework is that we are always a middleman, and reason is seldom the standard of value. The optimal outcome is seldom achieved.....and its always too little, too late. Its not even an efficient process. I alone take about 3 months to write a 150 page book to a final edit stage. It takes a parliament and 500 politicians, plus thousands of party analysts, bureaucrats and other interests to reach an outcome after 1-4 years, and then there is a lot of politicking. That is for an issue like the Australian flag. What about bigger issues. Some just never get resolved, like the referendum...highlighting that reason is not the standard of value.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Issues pertinent to the Australian election

Share |

In the lead up to this election voters ought to ask themselves what to make of our democracy. We will be given the opportunity to vote for a string of candidates, most of whom represent the Liberal or Labor Party. These two parties are seemingly the only credible alternatives. Though does that popular perception stand up to reason. Industry groups are generally right when they lament the fact that government spending does not create wealth. I would argue that some enterprises like train services, and utilities, to the extent that they are still owned by the state, are creating wealth. But these activities all have independent stewardship. Do we need 'efficacious executive administration' for the country. Can we not afford a 'weak government', if only for the sake of competition. We currently have a very comfortable duopoly for the Liberal and Labor Parties. They know it, and they take every advantage of it.

It is interesting that Tony Abbot is the incumbent choice for PM. Interesting because he was the person who railroaded 'red neck' Pauline Hanson several some years ago now. She even orchestrated her imprisonment for electoral fraud for 'discrepancies' which would not even make a Liberal backbencher blush. In the meantime, these politicians which have overseen the executive administration of the country for most of the last 100 years, have done very little to improve the justice system.

On the contrary, they have not simply overseen the decline of justice, they have actually been the principle exponents of abuse. Government ought to be engaged in protecting people, but instead they are the principle exponents in abusing their interests. Of course the short term 'crumbs' you will be offered in the course of this election are intended to convince you of otherwise.

I say to all Australians....don't sanction a bad system by giving your vote to either of the major parties. I personally choose not to sanction a system which is fundamentally flawed in its conception, but at the very least I implore you to consider building a viable alternative, by voting for a minority, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think your vote would mean more if you used a lottery system than voted for the major parties. Never in business have we witnessed any political acceptance of corporate duopolies...why do they make sense in politics.

Take a long range view. Not voting is a strategy which will take years. Only 50% of Americans vote today, though its voluntary. This does not seem to have much impact on the legitimacy of the US administration. Currently 95% of registered Australians vote because its compulsory. I am not registered, and the government does not publish the proportion of unregistered voters.

This is why you might prefer my alternative strategy of voting for a minority. Think about it..can you even trust the system to offer real tallies? How could you ever even trust a system which is based on principle people...if reason is not the standard of value.....just numbers. Its a con.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australia - Don't Vote!! part 2

Share |

George Carlin say's it with humour - Don't vote Australia!

------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australians - Why you should not vote!

Share |

I have said as much on my blogs over the years, but this guy sums up nicely why you should not vote in this August 2010 election.

This is a well-argued presentation. The only thing I would argue is that WWII was made possible because the German people sanctioned the system by participating in it. The reason they did not object when they were forced to, was because they did not object when they had the choice to. If you 'choose' to sanction their rhetoric today, you will accept their 'guns' tomorrow. This is the way we are going. Don't think you are moving towards freedom because Western governments are liberalising markets. Government does not need to control the manufacturing of product, they need only to control your income. They would prefer China to be with them. They don't want China to end fascism, they want them to join their style of fascism. In fact, we are moving towards Chinese fascism. Last month, Australia tried to adopt a resource rent tax. The miners accepted a comprised version. The full version was adopted in China, though with a minor concession. Its not simply an issue of miners vs government spending; its one more step towards arbitrary fascist control over wealth and wealth creation. Fortescue Metals appears to have conceded the battle. Where will it end? When the concept of principles is nothing more than a faint background noise you ignore.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australian election set for 20th Aug 2010

Share |

Julia Gillard has announced her intention to hold the election in mid-august 2010. This of course will give her the maximum opportunity to demonstrate that Australians need as little time as possible to learn about her.

If we switch to Tony Abbot. He is out with one of his policies. Pity its not a glowing respect for small business. He says that he will have a small business minister in the cabinet. Well that is simply a matter of tacking a portfolio on a minister with 'other more important duties'. He says he will also establish an industry ombudsman. The problem with an ombudsman is that they have utterly no authority to change policy, and if you give them "sufficiently little" resources, they might be just as useless as the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC).

It is actually remarkable how little Abbot has said. Based on initial statements Labor is going to win the election...but its very early days. They are equally useless so all Australians will lose. I won't be voting.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Greece - Learning from a government bail-out

Share |

Latest reports are particularly interesting on Greece. The reason why its interesting is that Greece was required to cut its deficit to comply with the EU's requirements for support. You might be wondering two things:

1. If its this easy for governments to cut taxes, why don't more of them do it to reduce the burden on taxpayers. After all the Greek government has been able to cut its deficit by 46%. Amazing! The reason of course others don't do it is because there is nothing in it for them. If you are happy to pay so much tax, they are happy to take it form you.

2. Why is the Greek government being asked to cut spending when other governments are increasing theirs, despite their bloated debt levels? Its simply that Greece does not sustain a very productive economy. Its like being a slave trader in Germany compared to the Bahamas. Bahamanians don't have a strong worth ethic, so they just can't sustain as much taxation burden as you. Living in a western country though is not so bad, as long as the quality of life is good. When the quality of life gets to a stage where you are better off elsewhere, you can expect these burdens to fall upon no one. Rest assured most people are not going to accept such a burden. But isn't it interesting that a nation's debt is not ascribed to any person in particular. i.e. You don't see banks offering loans to your 'collective family'. They will want to lend it to each of the family members individually. In fact conjugal property rights and obligations demand it. So why do banks accept debts from governments which rest upon nothing but your government's dubious ability to enslave you? Self interest to be sure. They will not be around when the system collapses. Fortunately the population of most Western countries is increasing. Possibly if these new migrants knew what they were accepting they might think otherwise.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Golden age for superannuation

Share |

This article by the SMH promises a golden age for superannuation thanks to reforms adopted by the government. Ultimately the idea of saving is great. But the problem I have with it:

1. Why would I want to simply get average earnings from a super fund that can only invest in large companies

2. Why would I want average returns? Fund managers manage billions, and many of them, whom I don't know are not even very good. They often don't even invest their own money. History is no indicator of future performance.

3. Why would I want restrictions on how I spend the money? There are tax advantages and disadvantages with super. The big problem is the risk of expropriation. Its a pool of money that can be taxed. No wonder small biz with the discretion to use it, don't bother.

4. Why would I want a pool of funds, locked into government control for 10-40 years, which the government can tax if it manages the economy so bad, or they think I made too much profit? That's the implication I can draw from their opportunistic grab at miners with the Resource Rent Tax. Of course this tax was sunk by opponents, but 40% of people supported it, and we are not in any dire economic situation.

I did not even read the article. Unless super funds are investing in a fighting fund to severely restrict the powers of 'arbitrary government' I am not interested. Alas, they are middlemen like government professing to offer some service and taking a fee in the process. Savings and investment are important. Too important to leave your savings to others. If you are less than 40yo you ought to be developing your own investment skills. Trust me, even if you don't make exemplary gains, at least you will have enjoyed it, and added to your job skills. It might even help you avoid Alzheimer's Disease. Most certainly it will protect you from the biggest, most vilest people you are even to come across - your 'representative' in Canberra.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Labor burns Peter Garrett over home insulation scheme

Share |

Further evidence that representative parliamentary democracy does not work. This time it comes in the form of 'Peter Garrett's head' - lopped off for really making a Economics 101 blunder. I did see him at Macquarie University one time. He must have been just a tourist because their 1st year economics courses were great! Oh well, I think he studied law. Maybe he should crusade for judicial activism....just maybe he'd give it his own slight 'judicial socialism'. Maybe its best if he stay on the backbench.

His mistake was an ill-conceived home insulation scheme. In fairness to Pete, there are not many 'rockers' around (aka Midnight Oil) who know how to manage money, so why should we expect any better from him. Also he was not the only minister to support such a scheme. They did the same in NZ, and probably elsewhere.....which just reaffirms my point. Democracy suxs...and it suxs badly. Not news to you? Well...why do you flipping vote for them! If you want change, you are going to have to participate! Coercion is a popular idea. Popular in school, corporations (usually in the form of extortion with incentives) and most of all government. Government is the peak body of corruption. It models subordinate sectors of the economy, just as the proto-parliament of England modeled the coercive powers of the monarch. We need to get away from unconditional love, as well as unconditional power. You get tax if you spend it well. If you don't, then you stop paying taxes. Why is everyone else expected to be accountable, but no one is. We are told by Dr Phil 'if there are no consequences, how do you expect him to learn'. The same rule applies to adults. Teach them to help themselves. They are like children!

Back to the home insulation scheme. The problem is that it involved government distortion in the market. Governments behave poorly because they get 'free money' they did not earn. It was extorted from 'earners' for the benefit of parasites, whether we are referring to the politicians, or the pragmatic politically-aligned business people who exist on government favours. Some business people don't even bother to get involved in such schemes because they understand the dubious nature of them.

Consider that - if you offer free or subsidised insulation - people rush to buy it. The problem is people are not deep thinkers, so they take the 'carrot', not recognising the other costs such as installation have been wildly overstated. They of course have no idea what installation involves, but they dive in, without even researching whether they would benefit from it. Cautioun is thrown to the wind. They don't even care about the quality because its cheap. The problem of course is that the wholesalers of the insulation and the installers cannot cope with all the demand, so they raise their prises. The implication is that we have a lot of installer millionaires around the country, and installation established which was probably not even justified. In many cases it was not installed properly. The rushed demand caused by the market 'distortion' of government resulted in house fires and even death. The problem is that roof lighting can ignite insulation if its not properly protected. So now we have law suits against government and people. All very silly! Its not a new problem....but it happens all the time, and people keep signing up for it. If you want an idea of how ill-conceived these schemes are - consider the same subsidies for 'heat pumps'. Heat pumps are great. But they make no sense if your house is poorly insulated. In some houses the best insulation is an "Eddie Bauer" jacket. It only costs $300 but it will keep you warm without heating the whole house.

A heat pump though is little more than a refrigerator in reverse. A refrigerator made in China can be bought retail for $500 these days delivered to NZ. A heat pump in contrast sells for $3000-6000 depending on its features. The implication is that it would be a better investment for you, and better for the environment for you to:

1. Defer your heat pump investment for 10-15 years until all those high-priced, unthinking Americans, Germans and Japanese have one, and then buy one. By that time they will likely integrate with your refrigeration, water distillation and home power solution.

2. You use the money saved to buy a wind turbine for zero future energy consumption. Or just buy some stocks, rather than go broke on government hand-outs.

Government is in the business of extortion because it does not know how to 'earn' money.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

PM Gillard - a low spending PM?

Share |

There are certain words that politicians love to use in order to convey legitimacy and prudence, particularly in hard times. They have a 'political lexicon' I'm sure which they reach for in times like these. Under the sub-section ''recession" you will see words like 'discipline', 'restraint', 'caution', 'long term', etc. Business executives have the same types of lexicons as well, and just like 3yo's they memorise these words on those long flights when no one else in around. They repeat them like some Indian guru 'mantra'.

Gillard has vowed to be 'restrained' in her next 3 years. She is going to use all the 'discipline' she can muster. The problem of course is that after such a bloated 'spend up' as the last 2 years, I would think that it is almost impossible to do anything but show 'restraint'. This is what I mean by lame duck politicking. You will not get any ideas from these politicians. Utterly hopeless. You need to believe that Labor are running with her only to get the women's vote...as liberals chase some false hope like Obama. Obama too presents as the 'reasonable advocate', but the problem is these people have no depth.

She is committed to climate change. This is sure idiocy when the pseudoscience postulating 'global warming' is demonstrably flawed, and the alternative model of 'sunspot activity' correlating with fluctuations in the climate are much more plausible, but also in need of some work. If there were an anthropogenic cause I would be saying 'ok, we should stop coal mining and burning', but what does Labor want to do...it just wants to tax it. The point being - if we are going to die from global warming, does it matter if the government has a fiscal surplus? If we are going to avoid calamity, do we want perception-driven politicians driving the disbursement of funds? The answer is NO!

If the science of global warming is plausible but unproven, perhaps the best or most prudent and conservative approach would be a 'provision' for contingent liabilities on the balance sheet of these companies. This would mean that people who think this science is nonsense can invest in either abatement measures, or even stocks which have made provisions. Does this not seem like the most sensible approach to 'global warming' IF it is a legitimate fear. But instead all we see with governments are plans to tax, tax and tax. This strikes me as materialistic self-preservation. Maybe they know something their mindless devotees do not - that there is no greenhouse threat, but they are happy to take their devotees for any support 'fear' can muster.

At this point she is only rhetoric, but she offers some hope. She at least talks about raising productivity, and it will be interesting to see what she means by 'raising education standards'. I disagree that 'education' is the key to higher participation. That is a more complex issue. Lower taxes would help, arbitrary adoption of taxes certainly does not. Will she learn from Rudd's mistake.

She is committed to the mining tax...though I have yet to see the final bill. I would suggest it will be a complete backdown, or have the miners sold out. Neither prospect would surprise me. Either way, we want wealth in private hands, not the government, which is not what she is about. She criticises Liberals for getting it wrong on the 'financial crisis', but the reality is both parties in government and opposition ignored the unfolding of the crisis, just as many voters did.

I agree with her that education and health are in dire need of reform....but is she the one to deliver. We can only wait. She argues that 'neither the private or public sector are any better', yet the reason for that is because the public sector sets a low standard, and yet people still abandon it for the private sector. I personally think private education is pretty poor, but people have expectations for it, and can vote with their feet. Whereas we are forced to pay taxes for public education like slaves. Which is why I call a 'slave a slave' and a 'slave-driver a perpetrator'.

The only short term acceptable way to combine public and private education to my mind is through private use of public infrastructure. If she does that - its a great start, and she will have made progress. That would be almost worth voting for...pity there is no competition in a two party duopoly, otherwise we might have expected a Liberal Party to raise the stakes. The question is - will her union bosses support her? I suspect not. The implication is that Gillard can promise anything, but she will only play into the hands of the union, which will have her dumped after the election. If she can get a huge gain in the election she could actually hold power against the unions (i.e. ACTU). The question then is - does she really believe it? Well...this is the sad part. I really think she has no belief in a public-private partnership....but its hard to know without more information.

She might just have my 'rhetorical' vote (since I don't really vote) for this election. What are the Liberals offering? Abbot? :)

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com