Saturday, July 31, 2010

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 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 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.
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?