Revisionist interpretation of human nature

Share |

Want to hear a new 'scientific understanding' of the world....a new type of humanism. Well, turn your attention to Mr Brooks in the New York Times, but more importantly, sort the responses by readers to his article, and you will attain a new hope for mankind. The answer is near, but you will not find it on the front page because that is dominated by politically-correct journalists or liberals who support the media corporate agenda, which is to support the two major parties.

Read his article here and then read the 'sorted' comments. Brooks starts off on the right path, then he goes off on a tangent, and thus becomes a repository of ideas which are exactly the problem...a lack of individualism. Yes, the old idea of humanity being too selfish gets a revisionist interpretation...and you guessed it....we are still too selfish...we have to renounce our personal will and follow the stupid masses. What has changed....surely not the dawn of a new messiah...nope the dawn of an old one.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

USA and Australia - our shared legacy of ignorance

Share |

Why is the Australian government donating $3mil to build a WWII veterans memorial in Washington. This strikes me as gross waste of money. Is the purpose of the memorial intended to remain Americans that we were there as well; that we are a great '2nd lieutenant', best mates. If the purpose of a memorial is a reminder, then let it be a reminder of something important, like the causes of the war. If I did a survey I dare warn you that too few people actually know the cause of war. I know that because we are inextricably moving to another war by practicing today the every same values that caused the war. Some lessons are of course never learned. Sadly, its the important ones. The less important ones are the one which are remembered, i.e. Like the fact that Australia partnered the US in various wars. Who dares. That ought to be important to Australians, not Americans. It ought to be about values, not allies.

So what has not been learned. Well, for a start, Australia has just elected a socialist to be its first prime minister. Yes, a woman. Whilst she might not be very good at shooting one, be assured, she is quite capable of persecuting Australians and foreigners alike. On this occasion she is making slaves of Australians by investing $3mil in a useless war memorial (given that people will remain clueless as to the actual cause of war).

So given that Australians ought to know that 'Nazi' is short for "National Socialist' party, how is it that we have come full circle, and now elected a socialist to lead the country, to function as a 'moral authority'. Let us not forget that the PM leads a government and government has the sole distinction of possessing a 'moral sanction', and its arbitrary...just as was the case for Hitler. Yep, he was elected by a democracy as well. Accountable? Yep, Hitler like Gillard was accountable to governments which practiced basically the same 'democratic game'. The difference was values. Not so great differences in absolute terms, but clearly they were compelled by 'relativist' disparities to take a different path. Today the USA is the country in the same desperate position as Germany was in the early 1900s. Expect austerity measures, just like Hitler was forced to adopt. Do I expect Obama to evade Mexico? No. I expect instead he will find a way (i.e. a rationalisation) to persecute the wealthy in his country, whether they deserve it (i.e. They obtained their wealth unethically) or not. That is what middlemen (and women) do to say in power.

So what was the cause of the war? Well, do you remember ever hearing at a war memorial service like Anzac Day, where various leaders praise their countrymen (i.e. veterans) for nobility of their 'sacrifice'. Well, that is the cause of war. Not that people do it, but that people think its noble. If people did not think that was the source of nobility, they would justify it another way. They would say 'Mate, I did it because if I did not fight the Germans in Europe, I'd have to fight them in Australia', i.e. He would identify the real motive, which was self-interest. A less narrow conception of 'selfishness' than we are accustomed to, but then who thinks conceptually these days anyway. Yep, that is the cause of wars. Society is confronting a crisis of values. A flawed theory of values which makes sacrifice noble. I want to end with a Hitler quote to affirm my point. Hitler offers many such quotes...but this one is simply stated: "You are nothing, your nation is everything". Yes, he too preached sacrifice...and at Anzac Day, Julia Gillard and other leaders in the democratic world will do the same....until you remind that that you are no longer a British 'subject', and that you recognise that democracy gives you no real choice in a system of government which offers no real competition, in a system which offers no real sense of accountability. Basically, for all those wars, we 'got and learned swat'.

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

Free floating currencies - a burden?

Share |

Julia Gillard has come out in sympathy for those struggling Australians who she acknowledges are 'doing it hard' because of the strong AUD. We must acknowledge a number of things:

1. These 'strugglers' or 'straglers' if you prefer are benefiting from a strong economy in terms of strong capital inflows, strong business investment, strong domestic sales & confidence; most particularly compared to other countries. The country has low unemployment after all.

2. These people are benefiting from lower-priced imports, i.e. Higher import penetration, and the corresponding greater competition. Mind you, in a global market which is increasingly 'free', the currency factor is less significant. i.e. All produce is priced to global pricing parity, plus or minus a premium for transport costs.

This is of course one of the problems with a floating currency regime. It is a relative rather than an absolute standard of value, so you might wonder whether its a good idea. It induces competition in countries, demanding those who struggle to get better, whilst those who excel can relax. Importers are doing well now, but manufacturers might have a harder time if they are using local produce, otherwise they are forced to switch to imported produce. Its a balancing act. At the end of the day, it is a good thing.

The notion of Harvey Norman workers losing their jobs is a disruption; but its actually a good thing because its a wealth creation process called 'Creative destruction'. Australians are too skilled and over-priced to be working in a shop-front. They ought to be managing a process or setting up an online store, not doing things which some call centre agent in NZ, or even in the Philippines can do for 30% to 70% of the price, even if with some quality loss. When we retain people in Harvey Norman, there is a huge opportunity cost in several respects:

1. People are paying too much for products than they need - thus Harvey Norman is retaining high profit margins, but this gives him no incentive to compete, so he doesn't. People have fewer financial resources to spend on other things, i.e. The efficiency of their spending has fallen. Some disparities in pricing make a joke of inflation calculations.

2. People are performing inefficient process or production routines which ought to be done by less capable, less skilled people

3. People are remaining safe, when they should be encouraged to be aspirational, so they are not a drain on the rest of the economy.

The biggest drain on our economy are middlemen. The greatest drain is the 'unconditional' support you are forced to give to incompetent political leaders. Don't vote them out! They set up the system so you always get a dud. Push them out! Get in the streets and campaign.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Julian Assange - Australian of the year?

Share |

The question is whether Julian Assange is a worthy candidate. There are reasons to question or pour scorn upon his actions:

1. Assange has most certainly advanced the cause of accountability through 'unregulated' disclosure

2. Assange has also exposed people to harmful impacts to serve his collectivist goals

Julian Assange is not an intellectual. He is motivated by ideals to be sure, and until he releases his book, then we will not know the exact nature of his motives. The problem though, it looks pretty bad.

The good news is that Julian is a single individual, not a collective state. The extent to which he is able to hurt others is a little more limited, particularly since the US government will eventually destroy him to discourage anyone from following in his foot steps. Rest assured there are plenty of anti-intellectual 'anarchists' around the world willing to fill his shoes. Hopefully, we will one day find find an idealist who does possess integrity.

So what is wrong with Julian Assange?

The answer is simple. He cares little whether his disclosure exposes government corruption or ineptitude, or whether he exposes a wealthy tax evader. Should he care? Well, from his collectivist perspective, he thinks not. But the reality is that for 'free thinking' Libertarians, those wealthy people, to the extent that they are not corrupt, and hiding wealth they earnt, they ought not to be exposed to the derision of parasitic voters who want their share.

He makes no distinction between tax evaders with objective principles and those corrupt officials who also hide money in those bank accounts. Why? Because he is a collectivist with indulgence thoughts. He is a reactionary...not a deep thinker. He has effectively persecuted some good people, along with corrupt officials. If a person points a gun at you, there is no moral requirement for you to 'honestly' tell them where your money or children are. For the same reason, wealthy people are entitled to hide their money if they can, and anyone who exposes them is not a libertarian, but a fool!

Worse is his folly, that he does not even care to offer a justification for his actions. Accountability is good! But whose moral sanction is he seeking? He is sanctioning the moral code that resulted in those institutions of concealing and corruption developing.

Anyway, you can vent your opinion at Facebook, or you can nominate him for Australian of the Year if you still like him. I personally think he has been a mix of good and bad, and hope he is a precursor to a more intellectual figure.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Do Australians really want a nanny state?

Share |

Currently in politics, Australia is offered a false alternative. It is a choice between fascism or social democracy on 'a back foot' (Liberal-National) or 'full steam ahead' (under Labour-Democrats-Greens). The reality is that they are essentially the same problem - no idea, or no intellectual, no rationality. They are functioning at an archeo-rational (primitive animalistic correlation level of awareness) which really befits animals. This of course leads them into the Nanny-State politics repudiated by the Liberal Democratic Party - which remains the 'least offensive' party in Australia.

See their response to the following poll "Poll finds most Australians believe Australia has become a nanny state":

Nick Leys From: Herald Sun May 08, 2010 12:00AM: EXCESSIVE rules and regulations have created a "nanny state" at the expense of key policy areas such as health, transport and education. New polling has found that most Australians - 55 per cent - believe Australia has become a nanny state and that government intervention and control in our daily lives has gone too far.

Now, read my response:

A survey can be swung anyway you want it, so one has to define one's terms. Do Australians support unqualified socialism, or unconditional, intrinsic love? I doubt it, though probably 5% of them do. Do they support unfettered, unregulated markets, I don't think so, yet the idea of maternal love of a 'nanny state' could be interpreted as either. They want a caring state, so the question is, do they want:

1. Unconditional, unthinking, arbitrary, indulgent, meaningless love

2. Conditional, contextual, principled, disciplined, intelligible love

They are the choices. The world has changed, so a gender dichotomy no longer exists, but I think you can argue that this 'love dichotomy' divides people between:

1. Those who seek safety, fearful, low self-esteem, care what other's think, collectivism as a moral primary

2. Those who seek rewards, values, efficacy, purpose, aspirations, individualism as a moral primary

They are the fundamental issues involved. Sadly, 99% of Australians don't think with such clarity because they don't know me. But I believe this is principled distinction you ought to be drawing. Otherwise put:

1. The mother who loves you for who you are - there are two varieties - the mother who hates herself and existence, and needs to destroy your life to justify her own pithy existence; or the indulgent mother who just lets you run around, doing your own thing, and lets you work it out.

2. The mother who recognises that humans (and children) have a nature and offers support commensurate with the objective, scientifically verifiable needs of the child. i.e. They are aspirational, so they study what children are like, i.e. Child cognitive and development theories, they find one which is compatible with the facts, using their critical thinking skills, they distinguish between two purported empirical studies which vaguely support two approaches.etc etc.

So whose your momma?

1. Liberal and Labour

2. Me - and hopefully some Libertarians interested in the philosophical/psychological roots of their "political correct" values.

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

Australia's finest doing what they do best

Share |

Here is just another example of the shortcomings of democracy....as if there weren't enough. I ask you - is this the way laws should be enacted? Is this the way moral agents exercising moral judgements, custodians of our justice system should behave?

I would expect shonky salesmen and backyard drug dealers to behave in this fashion. But these people occupy the highest positions in your country. These people are even performing these feats right out in the public, so they are not even ashamed of their action.

The question is - why do you - as a voter tolerate this type of behaviour. Why don't you take some responsibility for the state of your country. Why don't you insist upon some standards of conduct. I might also suggest standards are only cogent if reason is the standard of value. Its not. Its power, political pull and that means 'numbers'.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com