Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Jessica Sanchez should snub democracy - she moved the earth's axis

Share |
Its official - Philip Philips has won American Idol 2012, ousting Jessica Sanchez. This is tacky TV at its worst; highlighting the general stupidity and lack of objectivity of Americans; and also highlighting the incapacity of majoritive-based democracy to achieve objectivity. We already knew that right. Whether the problem was Philips mindless supporters or Sanchez's supporters belief that they did not need her vote, surely the biggest loser should be democracy....for it has affirmed its capacity to deliver injustice. Let us recall that Jessica had to be resurrected in order to place her in the top 5. Nothing to do with her performances; it was solely the result of American stupidity. 
If Philips had any respect for objectivity he would spurn the award and hand Sanchez the award - not as an act of altruism, but out of a sense of objectivity. i.e. Because he does not want to be elevated on the shoulders of idiots who might buy his albums. But alas, maybe this competition was not about talent; but more about 'who can sell albums to idiots'. Or maybe the show is about how to become an idiot. Who can tolerant idiocy. Well, I love all these talent shows - X Factor Australia particularly, as well as the Idol series. I love them for the talent developed and expressed. The 'democracy' I can do without...and the stupid voting system which denies talented people validation to appease stupid non-discerning idiots. 
The only defence I can make for Philips is that he does convey a style; but Sanchez trumps him in every respect. Teaming up with Jennifer Holliday only highlighted her maturity as a performer. I conclude that Jessica Sanchez shifted the earth's axis when she sings; Philips merely contributed to global warming. 

Thursday, May 05, 2011

What is wrong with a meritocracy?

Share |
Notwithstanding my positive views of Ayn Rand, and the acknowledgement I make to the impact she has had on my life, there were some negatives, and she also displays her share of blunders. Among them are sweeping statements and dubious reasoning.
Someone referred me to her conception of 'meritocracy', offered at the Ayn Rand Institute:
“Meritocracy” is an old anti-concept and one of the most contemptible package deals. By means of nothing more than its last five letters, that word obliterates the difference between mind and force: it equates the men of ability with political rulers, and the power of their creative achievements with political power. There is no difference, the word suggests, between freedom and tyranny: an “aristocracy” is tyranny by a politically established elite, a “democracy” is tyranny by the majority—and when a government protects individual rights, the result is tyranny by talent or “merit” (and since “to merit” means “to deserve,” a free society is ruled by the tyranny of justice).
Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp.105; sourced from The Ayn Rand Lexicon.
The problem I have with this definition is that its too sweeping in its implications. There is a lot of truth in it. A majority of people having authority over the balance is even more threatening than an autocracy because it holds a sanction of being morally legitimate by virtue of embodying the majority. Who could reasonably hold that the majority is a proxy for the truth. I would take the opposite position, that the minority is more likely to comprise discerning thinkers.
Rand assumes that there is a need in a meritocracy to unconditionally sanction the views of some 'meritocrats'. I don't see this as necessarily entailed, and its occurrence will ultimately depend on the underlying theory of values. This of course Rand understood, since her theory of values was her greatest insight. So if meritocrats do not enjoy the unconditional sanction of others, we have a situation where people need to be convinced. This conditionality is a basis for a new respect or empathy for others; and when you have that, the conditions are reciprocated.

The smallest minority is of course the individual. That does not mean to say that any one person should dictate the affairs of others. It means that every individual should have the sovereign right to represent their own interests or assign or withdrawal a proxy at any time, and on any issue.
Rand assumes here that 'merit' is a standard of value merely by assuming it. This of course raises the question of who embodies rational values. The answer is: The person who can withstand critical review. The problem with the world is not that we cannot find the truth; the problem is that people can too easily shirk accountability. The consequence is a great many 'schools of thought', with no inclination among those schools to reconcile their ideas, nor any provision for them to differentiate them from the 'functional society' such that they can prove the practicality of their philosophy or values. The problem for a great many of these 'schools of thought', and the individualist philosophies like Rand's are the exception, is that they depend upon the sanctioning of victims, i.e. They need to extort advantages from people. i.e. Collectivists have to plunder the wealth of the rich in order to sustain themselves. Of course any school needs raw land at the least, and access to resources.
Clearly making your own society makes little sense. It would be a tremendous diseconomy for people to go off and do their own thing. And yet a great many people do exactly that. Western societies are increasingly confronting low workforce participation rates. Some of these people are wealthy and think they don't need to work. Some however are so pissed off by governments and the rest of our 'unthinking society', that they decide to go off into the wilderness and grow dope or raise vegetables. They embrace the 'simple life'. Some of them just immigrate to a simpler place like NZ, others shack up with some girl in Thailand or the Philippines and life off investment income. There are many Westerners doing this. I stumble upon them all the time. Society does not talk about these people. Most of them are men, but then women can always find respite by depending on women. That is not so easy for men to justify, or women to accept.
I know a lawyer who did that. He was running a successful business, and he got into drugs, and gave the business to his son. He went off to live in an isolated area of Australia. He came back decades later saying sorry to his children, and regretting his decision. The reality however is that he came back with no greater mental clarity. He was engaging in escapism, as these 'schools of thought' are prone to do. I understood his disdain for his society, but unlike him, I retained a respect for facts, and I sought intellectual coherence and correspondence of facts. It has taken me a long time, but it was not time wasted. It was a source of pride 'in discovery' as well as efficacy, knowing that I could out-debate all takers. The next stage of course is to educate and achieve some practical effect. This is not easy. How do you convince people who are convinced that there is no answer, and that humanity is this way by nature. They don't need to talk to me. They have discounted humanity, so their conception of the 'reasonable', whilst more tragic than mine, serves them...as long as humanity continues to disappoint them.
This leaves little respect for objectivity. Some even proclaim to embody it, but they don't have a causative or intellectual framework for thinking...just a rough correlation between their values and their experience. They don't need causation; they each have their support group of vested interests. This support group is pitted against counterparts of course in our democratic society, and each remains entrenched in conflict, attempting to extort some concession through alliances; not underpin by reasons, but 'numbers'. This does not work intellectually of course, but extortion does achieve 'practical' concrete goals.. Little surprise that people start to find NOT thinking very practical. Whether they are pragmatic, or even evasive/repressed: two things happen:
1. People lose respect for facts - they become sceptical
2. People lose respect for people - they become morally relativists - they start to think humanity is screwed up by nature, they start to dismiss the significance or importance of any one individual, and they start to think that the only way to change the world is by forcing policy down people's throats. So we get police officers saying 'if you don't want a fine, then stop breaking the law'. "You will learn one day!". This is nonsense. The law does not teach anything but obedience, and unless we are prepared to move towards fascism, then this is not the way to go. The reality is that its the police and politicians who don't need to think because either party is accountable. The police protect each other. If they are caught for something, they are simply dismissed, but more commonly given the opportunity to resign.
Its the same for politicians. If the electorate cannot 'tolerate' some indiscretion, they will be given the opportunity to resign, and will probably avoid investigation, so they can keep their lifetime pension. Standards are already pretty low. Politicians right around the globe have been engaged in corruption scandals, from the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Japan, India, the Philippines. What makes it possible is - the governments unconditional right to your money (i.e. taxation). This is why you should simply stop paying tax. Withdrawal your sanction for poor administration and declare this a 'failed state'. All democracies are failed states.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Syrian military crack down on protesters

Share |
There is a massive crackdown occurring in Southern Syria at the moment. It makes one think that the UN Security Council ought to intervene in this country to prevent human rights abuses. There are a number of problems of course:
1. Control of the skies is not going to do much
2. Syria is strongly supported by Iran
3. Support would need to include military arms or a ground force, and I don't see that.

What is the solution to this problem? I think the US needs a biodegradable armaments. i.e. A gun which degrades after 2 years of use. The problem of course is that the Middle East needs to develop a respect for human rights. They are too ready to tolerate autocrats. They need to develop some fighting skills and dig in. You'd think the US could offer some training in Israel. This only works however if:
1. The US offers training in ethics as well - and its a big bridge to cross
2. The US has a consistent foreign policy - seemingly impossible given their moral ambivalence. Just look at their track record in the Middle East.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, March 07, 2011

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

Friday, March 04, 2011

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

Monday, February 21, 2011

Student detained for loathsome Facebook posts

Share |
In the United States, a student has been apprehended for posting vague messages of loathing society....the police responded. It does strike one as political correctness.
Preventing him going to that school is a decision the student ought to make - not the principal. He has not done anything wrong. He vented anger at the world. Who wouldn't when the world we live in is pretty poor. He deserves a Nobel Peace prize for identifying the hypocrisy or inherent contradictions in contemporary 'social values' at such a young age. If only every student could get such counselling....better still...if people actually realised 'the system' is stuffed. So what exactly is wrong with the system. Well here are some pointers:
1. Might makes right. Since the 1860s (Britain) perceptions have been more important than facts, i.e. Numbers more important than reasons or science. The implication is that sensible common law has become displaced by statutory law, which is inconsistent, so we need amendments to patch up contradictions, which creates loopholes, so you get this endless complexification of the law, which does not work because even the expert lawyers, accountants and so forth don't understand it, so you have to test the law in the courts, or get a ruling from the tax office. In conclusion, its arbitrary law, little better from when Hitler ruled Europe. That's right, the House of Lords & Commons were right to reject universal suffrage (democracy), but sadly they could conceive only of a false alternative (fascism/communist). Education was destroying people's minds back then as well. We needed a meritocracy, with reasons driving policies, not numbers. Reasons which are critiqued, rendered coherent by the smartest in society, not numbers which are extorted by vested interest groups or populists. Yes, we need a respect for objectivity. Even science today has turned into a popularity contest at the behest of governments. i.e. Climate change, monetary economics. The US started with sensible values....but democracy white-anted it. Democracy has also inhibited the development of the humanities....philosophy and psychology particularly.
2. Lack of accountability. The current system does not hold anyone accountable....most particularly politicians. The reason is that a 'two-party' democracy may as well be a single party autocracy. That is feeble competition when you know you are going to be elected by default in a bad system, able to be corrupt or get your chance at power. How hard do you think it would be for a politician to receive kickbacks into a Swiss bank account. Most of them are wealthy lawyers already. Ask yourself why Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is so loathed. Because bank workers will have a means to disclose the private bank details of corrupt politicians, as well as innocent taxpayers who ought not be forced to pay tax....why? That is my next point.
3. Coercion. People accept the myth that they have rights. You don't. They have a delusion of rights. Your political rights mean nothing in a modern specialised society where your material rights are everything. Without economic rights you are a slave to an unaccountable, wasteful, scornful (Wikileaks) or indifferent state. They will even use your tax contributions to keep you in your place, as an 'economic slave' serving their expedient and ill-conceived. Ill-conceived because they are not accountable for their policies. You triennial vote means nothing to you, and communicates little to them. They are middlemen, they are not statesmen with ideas. They know as much about public policy as your stockbroker knows about good investments. They are salemen making a buck living off your buck. You need statesmen the likes of Thomas Jefferson, but with even more integrity after 250 years of progress. Your system does not create them. This system loathes 'big picture', conceptualisers....it loves money, and spurns all ideas which does not create it TODAY!
We could go more fundamental than that, but that is the practical manifestation of your ideals! Think again.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, January 24, 2011

India's democracy is corrupt - change the system!

Share |
An Indian man was killed by local government official after he used the very powerful Right to Information provisions in the law to challenge their right to exploit his land for limestone. The man was shot in a drive-by killing after writing a letter to the local newspaper. Death is a potential risk where corruption is involved.
"India may be the world’s largest democracy, but it remains dogged by the twin legacies of feudalism and colonialism, which have often meant that citizens are treated like subjects. Officials who are meant to serve them often act more like feudal lords than representatives of the people".
The problem however is that there is no such thing as representation as long as:
1. You do not have the opportunity to renounce your sanction. i.e. The requirement to wait for years until the next election is not good enough.
2. You do not have an effective choice when you are obliged to choose between parties. Worse still that you only are able to choose among several people you do not even know to any great depth because news media give you know analysis of their character.
3. Your sanction is collectivised through the electoral system, which is supposed to conjure up some fantasiful notion of 'the common good'. Where is the common good? If there is any such notion, it does not lie in a 'collective consciousness', since there is only a collection of specific individual consciousnesses. What plausibly could anyone person represent but an idea or a principle? But that is not the foundation of democracy. Democracy does not deal in ideas (i.e. debates). Not really. There is the facade of parliamentary question time. The real debates are not about ideas; they are not about education or learning, or persausion. They are about extortion. Numbers, whether votes or money. That is the nature of our democracy. That is why people get killed. You cannot kill an idea when ideas are respected. It only takes one person to raise an idea, it takes a majority to give ascension and credence to a good idea in a democracy. And yet you sanction this system in your name. You allow the government to show that you sanction this facade by voting for it each year. That is the true purpose of democracy...to sanction stability, allowing all manner of indiscretions to occur whilst you 'passively' think you are being represented. If you thought for a moment how fantasiful that notion is, you would realise it never works. Simply look at how many people vote in shareholder meetings, if not democratic elections...they don't because they know the process does not work for them. The only people to participate are either misguided idealists (and there are a few) and those for whom the system works. Change the system!
But be careful what you wish for. Accountability is not the issue. Accountability to what?
"The law was intended to be a much-needed leveler between the governors and the governed. In many ways it has worked, giving citizens the power to demand a measure of accountability from bureaucrats and politicians".
The law is not a rational standard of value. Over the last 900 years common law, which is our most logical law, has been displaced by arbitrary statutory law. The arbitrariness of statutory law is the reason why it cannot be trusted as a source of law. It has engendered all manner of loopholes which will allow the politician to escape accountability. You will be holding him to a standard which he constructed to serve him. After all, extortion (i.e. taxation) is legal under statutory law for politicians, but strangely it is illegal under common law. There are plenty of double standards like this under statutory law, which are intended to protect politicians from accounting. Their folly is that they don't realise that they ultimately can be held accountable to the standard which they invented, but which can change. Sadly, it might be some lynch mob...but they were the role models for such a system. My interest however is an objective standard. These politicians are a product of our education system...change the system from the top!

Mr. Socha, an environmental activist, said:
“Our hearts are broken after his death...You cannot fix the system. Everybody is getting money. If I give my life, what is the point?".
The system can be changed if people think. Encourage people to think. Email your friends this story. This is a very powerful example of the systematic flaw in our democracy. It starts with one person....and it builds. Cynicism and moral scepticism is as much the problem as corruption...it is a form of corruption.
You might think this is just ‘extreme’ Indian politics…it’s not…its Western democracy when the stakes are high. In Australia, a minority politician spent 3 months in jail because of the political pull of the major parties…before a judge overturned the decision. That is all it took to retain power for the main parties. They did not need to kill her, they just needed to discredit her…job accomplished. If killing is necessary, powerful interests will often do that.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

India a leader in putting laws to song

Share |
People really are not aware of India's role in reforming global democracy. This place is a hot-house of injustice simply because its more unstable than most other democracies. We have witnessed the capacity of democracy to whether all types of storms.
So far in India, we have seen judicial activism compel governments to reform. This has resulted in the judiciary taking a more active role in law making. People might spurn the idea of judges 'making the law' as opposed to 'interpreting' it, however the reality is that the dichotomy is a misconception. Interpreting law is making the law; its just making less fundamental law, as well as reconciling fundamental laws, as is often the case with High Court decisions.
Chief Justices don't argue this point for some reason. It is a pity...Good if we didn't have morally ambivalent Chief Justices.
So judicial activism is very a big undercurrent in India...but the other one is 'Bundarro'.
What the **@@@?? I have no idea what this is about, but it seems to be a grassroots political activism which places the laws of the nation into song. Can someone interpret this song for me. Anyway, I think its a great idea. Karaoke justice! Let's not fight wars; let's just dance. Problem is I guess - the Indians were never leaders in rhythm. If this gets to the ghettos - watch out!


------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

NZ is officially a police state

Share |
Welcome to the Fascist States of America, Australia, Britain, Canada and now New Zealand. Australia, NZ and Canada have yet to experience a terrorist threat, so one might wonder why we need laws which allow the government to 'snoop' into people's emails and hard disks. On this note, we have to appreciate that the terrorists have one. Why? We have become one of them. They might well be envious because they have only guns to control their citizens, but the 'British subject' has his thoughts controlled. Yes, everything I think goes onto my hard disk, and those who don't think live in freedom. Its the perfect fascist state. It will turn us all to sheep, for those of you who have not been turned to sheep already.
Why is this a problem? Well, there are several reasons:
1. The law can be poorly executed
2. The law can result in mis-use or treatment of property
3. The law can result in property seizures and confiscations
4. People who are merely opposed to government can have their property seized and destroyed.
5. People who are political opponents of government can have 'incriminating' files placed on such 'seized' property, and probably be incarcerated indefinitely.
6. It allows the government to identify the 'political threats' to its existence and to 'terminate' them.

The problem of course is that these fears do not register in the minds of the general populous, who would never give a thought to political implications. They live at the level of a sheep, never questioning anything. So, what can we expect? Well, non-registered journalists like myself who have a few blogs under a pseudonym the government does not know about, who talk about a broad array of public policy issues like rape, domestic violence, terrorism, taxation, pedophilia, rights, political persecution, are likely to come up on some database as a threat. Because I am not a registered journalist, therefore for some unthinking bureaucrat a 'plausible threat' I can expect a squad of anti-terrorists to break into my property and seize property. If the contents of the computer do not agree with the government, I might well expect to lose them. There is no reason why they could not plant material on the computer. Why? Because they don't like my political opinions. Because I am not tolerable. Because I am an activist showing contempt for what they believe in.
We might wonder why is terrorism getting so much attention. We have many more babies being killed by domestic violence, but we do search and seizures for parenting classes. We do not take a register of people not attending parenting classes; and yet there is an equally good correlation. The difference is that many more children are killed of domestic violence in NZ than by terrorism; for which the number is zero. That is right, we are considering anti-terrorism laws despite NZ never having had a terrorist attack. Over-reaction? I think so.
It gets worse. Governments are the worst offenders of the law, whether you are talking about 'the rule of law', or simply moral law because 'popularity' or 'emergency provisions' or the 'common good' was considered an adequate (but arbitrary) protection of people's interests.

It gets worse. How can we expect foreign governments to adopt rights if we give token consideration to them. If we look like hypocrites to the developing world, or even our own people, what expectation can be have that those people will respect rights. The reason why government is such a threat is because they are not governed by the 'commonsense' common law. They are only accountable to the statutory law prepared by themselves. That's right, we are protected by them for us, but we are not protected from them. They are subjected to no accountability. The token vote you have at the end of the will mean little because there will only be two parties. How can there be a 'charismatic' alternative leader. He would have had his computers seized and evidence planted on him. You, as an unthinking sheep, will not join the dots. No one will risk joining the dots. We already live in a terrorist state. Some 200 journalists go missing or are assassinated in the Philippines each year, more in Russia, the Western governments say nothing....they do nothing. Why? They join us fighting for rights in foreign countries whilst our own rights are whittled away at home. They are not withdrawn, they are just undermined by statutory law. It defines rights in such arbitrary ways, that they are readily loopholed. They are 'arbitrary' laws that have no correspondence to reality. They are specific and concrete, and allow the government to loophole the law in the same way as companies are efficacious at loopholing tax. Which requires ever-more draconian measures to prevent tax evasion. The reality is that business is always going to be further ahead, but now business simply collects tax for the government. This is fascism at its worst, because now we have business organisations sanctioning taxation.

There are no reasonable grounds to suggest that NZ is under threat. People might argue that this intrusion into our privacy is intended to protect us. It might, but the problem is that it will not protect you from government, and they are a 'sovereign' threat to you. Even America will not invade NZ, because it likes these policies as well. So we will have to look to Iran and North Korea for rights, and they don't have any either.
If you want a sense of just how useless the United Station Declaration of Human Rights is, or the NZ Bill of Rights is, simply look at this law. I have long known that we were trending towards fascism. If you want a comparison consider this. In the lead up to World War II, the biggest exponent of animal rights was Hitler....and the national car plan - the Volkswagen. John Key has not found his 'national plan' yet, except perhaps his national day of mourning (Pike River), but we have today more concern for the rights of farm animals (i.e. the prohibition on pig enclosures - sow grates) than we do with human rights. We might wonder whether Hitler ever intended to elevate human rights, or to diminish the rights or value of the human populous.
There is no reason to think that the World Rugby Cup will pose any greater threat than any other event. After all, why would you attempt to blow up a stadium. You will have far more collateral damage if you blog us a shopping mall. Less security, more contained, less immediate threat. The malls are open every day, thousands of people to search, multiple entries, emergency exits. Few if any police. Why would you target a stadium. Better to blow something up when foreign journalists are in town; but does it really matter, as all media is syndicated these days. By todays standards, its the number of deaths which matter. A shopping centre would actually have a greater fear factor....as we all go shopping at least once a week, compared to attending the football.
The reality is that the intent to enact these laws is not about justice, its about political control. We never really left fascism. The 'New Deal' of Roosevelt after WWII was not the end of political tyranny, it was the start of a new form of it.
I really think people have to start fighting for their rights, because there is no place left on the planet to hide. I am giving serious consideration to becoming a mindless 'hobo'. Having a mind these days is inclined to give you a bad case of anxiety. Its too late. People carry to much, where its through evasion, psychological repression or simply rationalisation. They will do this to the grave because they do not think long term. They are not interested in the intellectual or political legacy they are leaving their children...they are thinking about the next year tops.
What they do not realise is that...the repudiation of the mind is sending us back to the Dark Ages. We are already close to this point. We are controlled by a mindless majority. Specialisation of industry has delivered vast wealth, but it has left our lives controlled by compartmentalised thinkers performing mindless 'specialised' routines without any thought for politics or morality. Why? Because they have no real vote....just the pretense of one. No one expects their vote to make a difference, so they just turn off. Unless voters turn back on and start protesting, things are going to get worse. It is far worse than they know. It is not the misery of war. It is the misery of centuries of silent defeat and stagnation. This email might well be your last beacon of light. If this legislation is past, anyone who writes such material will disappear, they will be arrested for homosexuality, child pornography. It does not matter. Anything which you can make us, stick evidence on their computers, and arbitrarily detain them in a gaol, and no one will care. We have got to the point where people don't care. There is no empathy. People will say, "He's rich, he can afford taxation", or they will say "If he didn't want to go to gaol, he should have just kept his mouth shut". These comments herald the decline of society into moral relativism. It follows moral scepticism or ambivalence. People do not need to be moral, they need to discover what morality entails. Principles....common law...not arbitrary statutory law.
This law is probably be the most important one in terms of marking our transition to a police state. After NZ, there are less regulated states one could go to, but those options like the Philippines or Thailand are probably going to see you tracked down by local assassins. Its cheaper for the government. If you think this is not happening, consider what is happening to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. The US government is using hackers to undermine his interests, they have discredited his reputation with accusations of rape....by two women no less...because who would believe it if it was one....despite the fact that he had no previous sexual offences....suddenly he has multiple offences. In the Philippines, there are about 200 journalists who have been killed under the Aquino Administration. The West might be just about to see its first one...but it will not be the last. Any appreciated blogger could be the next target. We are also witnessing a new form of corporate complicity....the server administrator who will do anything to stop the government hacking its web site. The government of course does not need to acknowledge that it is the government...it acts stealthly....just as those traceless 'radar-proof' planes that fly into foreign territories....with much to hide and without accountability.
The implication is that censorship is outmoded. Today, you might well be identified before you can even 'think' about matters contrary to government policy. Governments will have plenty of support from nationalists. In NZ, it will be mostly the old people. The young will just be indifferent and morally ambivalent. In the US, the military, religious nutters will be foot soldiers for the government, hacking into the websites of people whose values are contrary to the interests of the government. You will still live in a democracy; the term will just simply come to mean something very different to what you thought. You probably did not associate democracy with tyranny, the right of the majority to expunge the minority, but that's what you voted for. You just didn't think. Rights were supposed to be a protection. They were 'natural laws'. They have been supplanted by 'obligations' or conditional rights. Of course gradually there are more conditions, and those rights seem to mean even less. Censorship? Its a think of the past. The media is aligned with the government because they want the press release, and bloggers who get a certain number of hits are subjected to 'warnings' or simply their website is hacked by former military personnel. That is your future.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Considerate mayor spares taxpayers debt

Share |
Living in a society where politicians first instinct is to precipitate financial crises by facilitating the mass expansion of debt or printing money; and then their 2nd instinct is to do more of the same, and then to blame the market or CEOs for reacting to the policies they adopted.
So it is refreshing when a politician does more than offer tax cuts which merely keep up with 'bracket creep', or who offers unsustainable tax cuts which will be removed after the next election, because they never made corresponding cuts to spending or reductions in debt.
There is a politician in San Diego County who is doing just that...mind you it has taken the financial crisis, and its probably because he is between a rock and another hard place. No, actually its not such a hard place....the long suffering taxpayer who carries all burdens. They cave like there is no tomorrow. So its refreshing that when there is a politician who does not take advantage of the apathetic passivity of taxpayers or there moral scepticism.
Jerry Sanders, the mayor of San Diego County, is proposing to end the pension for city workers in order to rein in the public financing burden of city workers. Instead these workers will be required to adopt the same 401(k) pension plan used by private pensioners. By removing public servants from public financing, the mayor is sparing city taxpayers from the prospect of an unfunded liability which could blow out in future years.
It is rare that we find such acts of accountability by politicians, which is good reason why they should not be trusted with unconditional access to public funds. The idea of politicians having unaccountable access to financing did not exist in the Dark Ages, why does it exist today? There is an expectation that infrequent elections provide adequate 'choice' and adequate accountability. The international experience suggests otherwise. The contemporary two party duopoly we see in Western democracies offers no effective choice. There is seldom any public accountability in democracies around the world. At the moment, the only govts with balanced budgets are the commodity producing nations like Australia, NZ, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Canada, which have experienced a rapid rise in commodity prices, and thus the public tax receipts have exploded. This has of course not stopped them from presiding over a blow-out in private household debts...so the same lack of prudence remains. Why did private sector debt blow out? Fed financial distortion...yes, it comes back to government.
It is always public sector enabling...even if materialistic private sector CEOs and aspirational homeowners have taken advantage of it. The system was designed by politicians. So when we have a politician who does not take the easy path of placing the public sector liabilities on the taxpayer-funded credit card, we ought to praise his consideration for the taxpayer. Where you are a local taxpayer, or a federal taxpayer, you will end up paying.
So...thanks to Jerry Sanders, the mayor of San Diego County...great guy...even if it took a financial crisis for him to execute...who knows it might lead to a spread of integrity. It is noteworthy that this greater accountability is happening on a country/local government level.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Credit for the strong Australian economy

Share |
Australian politicians have descended into 'economic relativism'. Treasurer Wayne Swan is taking the credit for a relatively strong economy, and Joe Hockey, from the Opposition, wants to claim a share for John Howard....and perhaps Peter Costello.
The problem with this revisionism is that its less than accurate. One does not thank a slave master for relaxing the reins. Even then we would have to thank the Chinese slave masters for liberating their economy, along with other global emerging markets. China is not solely responsible...If they are only concerned with relativist performance, they should thank George Bush and Alan Greenspan for sabotaging the US economy.
Realistically speaking, we ought to recognise that we are not strong, just we are being rewarded for our hard 'commodity' currency, our plethora of commodity resources, our small population and China. If one considers the recent policies of both governments, increasing immigration to artificially stimulate the economy, we might accuse them of diluting Australian wealth....yet any claim to that is probably collectivism...depending on your framework for 'public ownership'.

Neither of the claimants mentioned - Swan or Hockey - has done anything to reform our political system. Rudd talked up human rights and did nothing. They are fascists and they ought to be condemned for the sufferance imparted on Australians...whether for retaining their coercive powers over the population, for wasting public funds, by failing to reform, by entering these childish and petty, blame and credit competitions. They are utterly useless and they ought not have the powers they have.

The Australian economy is relatively strong because the Chinese are financing the development of huge resources in the country, because the government has increased immigration (which increases economic demand), because the govt regulates land subdivision (which underpins property prices and credit growth), and because other countries are more exposed to the broader economy. Australia is doing better than NZ, Canada, Brazil, Chile, South Africa because we are more stable and resource-rich, with greater exposure to China by virtue of our proximity to China. I don't see these politicians featuring as much of an influence in those parameters.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Democracy, unions and extortion

Share |
No good can come from extortion. i.e. The use of force to attain some value or concession. In society today, people are able to extort people illegally because of arbitrary laws which make excepts, which depart from principles which fail to treat people equally. This is the basis of natural law...the idea that as human beings we are equal in capacity (i.e. thinking in particular), thus equal moral agents before the law. The extent to which we are not equal, i.e. Mentally retarded, temporary insanity or mentally ill, is the extent to which we make concessions or withhold moral judgement. This is also why we don't condemn animals for moral breaches by human standards. They have no conceptual faculty to display moral agenda. That is not to say they are not moral. They just don't have a choice about being moral. By moral I mean - act in accordance with their nature, as opposed to some arbitrary or subjective standard some humans would decide to live by.
In this article we can see how a powerful union in Australia has resorted to extortion in order to extract funds from Australian business. This is not the first time that I have heard news of this. A story years ago described how a local union boss was paid kickbacks to keep miners working at Rio Tinto mines. His workers knew about this.
About 20 years ago I knew a demolition contractor John Compagion who was blacklisted by a construction union for failure to comply with their demands. He received death threats. He had 50 plus staff, and lost his business overnight because of a construction union. He ended up committing suicide by shooting himself in the head. Not before trying to develop some intellectual argument. The problem is business thinks it can simply to continue to pay out these people. They are just rewarding a bad system. Unfortunately, whilst he had the charisma of a leader, he did not have the intellectual arguments. He tried....but it was too late.
This union is an extortion ring, let it persists with its existence because people fear it. It is powerful because its member base is an important support for the Labor government of Australia. Martin Ferguson in this story is directly implicated.
Years ago there was the Labor Senator Richardson who was discovered to have a Swiss bank account. You might wonder for what purpose. We have long been accustomed to Labor's pork barrelling and vote stacking. This party is corrupt... and whilst the Liberals are better; by no means are they stewards of moral standing...which is what you would expect from political leaders. The role of politicians is to enact 'moral law'. The fact that people elect extortionists into parliament ought to be a source of concern. They then have to question the system. Does not democracy legalise and legitimatise extortion? 'Might makes right'. This sounds like extortion to me. Heard about the 'tyranny of the minority'? Well the Senate was supposed to protect us from that...but society has moved on...parliament has consolidated, interests have alligned, and now the major parties have shared interests...to preserve their duopoly of power. The media helps them do it, so they can retain their power as well.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Sunday, August 01, 2010

Debate on the legitimacy of statutory law

Share |
In this debate I am taking on a member of Political Forum.com on the illegitimacy of statutory law. My argument as stated earlier is that its arbitrary and that the democratic 'tyranny of the majority' is a breach of people's rights, and thus the system ought to be repudiated as a gross breach of personal freedom.

There are a lot of unthinking people around who want civil rights. I agree you don't have them, but precisely because you don't have them, any efforts to attempt to introduce them will result in a false promise. Its like John Howard sabotaging your right to a republic. He chose the questions which sabotaged any prospect of it.
We don't need civil rights; we need disbandment of arbitrary statutory law, and elevation of respect for common law, which predates statutory intervention. The idea that some parliament represents the people is a nonsense. The cold 'heartless' judicial interpretation of legal principles is a far superior defense of our rights. For this reason, I look towards judicial activism for protection, not civil rights, which could only be arbitrary statutory constructs, and therefore dubiously enacted. Are you expecting rights to be enacted by the agent which abuses them? Think again.

Response 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.

Response by Royd Bogan: "Have a look at the statutes of any parliament in Australia. See what they regulate or deal with, eg telecommunications. Now tell me statutory law isn't needed".

Response by MegadethFan: "Statutory law is needed in all cases".

That is an unsubstantiated assertion....falls flat don't you think?

Response by Royd Bogan: "No it doesn't. My example of telecommunications law shows that statutory law is necessary in a more complex society".

Nonsense. If we need a parliament to achieve a sensible telecommunications framework, what capacity do they as a parliament have which you and a group of mates, or even an anarchy does not? Force? Are you saying good policy just needs the coercive state to achieve a 'logical' outcome.

We have assemblies (parliaments or Congress) not because we could not otherwise reach a decision, but because people don't think we have time, or the capacity to deal with opposition, regardless of whether it is reasonable or flawed.
You would be surprised how simple and how harmonious society can be if people live according to principles, with a respect for logic/objectivity. I know because I've been among such people. But all that is repudiated by 'practical' people like yourself who want action before thought. Ask yourself why there is little serious debate in parliament. Its because its results do not matter. Its easier to pay off people than convince them....as they don't think like their counter parties.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

The problem with anarchism and liberal democracy

Share |
The following forum discussion comes from a dialogue I am having at Political Forum.com, which you can follow if you like at their website.

Royd Bogan;2771977: "Anarchism is what you described as, "libertarian state is desired with protection of Common law. No initiation of coercion, only as self-defense or restraint".

Anarchism repudiates organised govt. Therefore no recognition or repudiation of rights. There is no basis for objectivity with respect to repudiation of force. It is therefore a lynching by the most powerful interests. I am not suggesting that there cannot be more than one govt, I am suggesting there needs to be organisation to achieve objective justice..

Royd Bogan;2771977: "Liberal democracy is a compromise only in the sense that it attempts to minimise the fallout for the minority. I don't think that's particularly objectionable".

In fact it causes the fall-out for the minority. It is suffers from a more fundamental contradiction in epistemology. It holds that the arbitrary majority (i.e. democracy) can impose themselves upon the minority. Even if there are protections for them in law, as there is supposed to be with a Senate, arbitrary legislation will loophole any 'spirit of the law' provisions or protection. Thus Liberal democracy is a destined to fail.

Royd Bogan;2771977: "Common law is too simplistic for modern industrialised societies. It is the basis for statutory law to build on. In fact we'd be well rid of some of its aspects, at least in the criminal side of the calendar".

Common law is fundamentally a rough conception of objective law. It build a set of principles upon which the rights of people are recognised. You might not choose to recognise those fundamental principles, but there development in feudal times was the result of their practical application. The problem was of course no great legacy of logical thought, merely precedence. The epistemology of the time, and even contemporary epistemology, unfortunately does not support any fundamental validation of common law, but the argument is there to be made. I'll make it myself one day, when it becomes a priority.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Abbot and Gillard are liars - so we have a political consensus

Share |
The idea that Tony Abbot is honest is nonsense. The democratic political process turns them all into liars. Here is a sample in respect of Tony Abbot. It refers to a conversation between Abbot and Latelines Tony Jones during the 2004 election. I don't accept that its his private business. Its a public issue. The sensibility of the issue is that he is implied to have mustered the support of Archbishop Cardinal Pell to oppose the Labor education policy.

My intent is not to influence anyone to vote for Labor. They are even more deluded and dishonest. The intent is to encourage people to break this horrible system, by whatever means they find desirable, whether its protests, voting for a minority. My preferences being:
1. The Secular Party of Australia
2. The Liberal Democratic Party - they also evade issues, but at the very least let's have some real competition in politics, even if reason is beyond these people.

Furthermore lets ridicule the absence of coverage for minority members for the Senate. The media should offer some coverage of these people if we are to have any chance of breaking the deadlock of the current two-party system.

Frankly I find 95% of Australians and every other country to be liars. These are very ordinary people, and if you look at how you elect people, you might wonder why you get representatives who are anything live the 'common man' in the street. Its what you voted for.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Saturday, July 31, 2010

The tyranny of the majority

Share |
I picked this off some forum I am participating in:
Originally Posted by Royd Bogan View Post
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.

------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Thursday, June 24, 2010

A new leader for the "lame-duck decade"

Share |
Australia has its first Prime Minister - and guess what! "Its a girl". Before we get as excited about as we were about the Obama victory, let's take a closer look at her history. Based on my research I think we can expect the following:
1. Labor conservatism - she is by no means a radical. She is boringly old school labor. So don't expect an emissions trading scheme. This has endeared her to the unions.
2. A plodder - She believes in hard work, and reading books. But its not that you read, its more important that you read, and how you absorb the information. She might be knowledgeable, but do not expect a great thinker. This is no doubt where her conservatism comes from - a fear to think efficaciously. Just like her father. The good news is that she is not ambitious, so there are not going to be any leaps in social policy. She is a reluctant leader.
3. Social policy - She is no doubt going to be advancing various old-fashion social policies, but they will be concrete bound and make very little material difference.

Sorry to say Australia, you have a very boring choice to make at the next election. Let's identify 2010-2020 as the "lost decade of moral ambivalence" for Australia. Perhaps we will see political slogans in the election like 'Consolidation' and 'Public trust'...the question is which side will be saying them. Hard to pick. I guess the good news is that the thrust towards fascism has been arrested. Rudd is gone.
So in conclusion, we have a choice between lame duck Abbot and lame duck Gillard. Take your pick! I think it will not matter much, though hard to say what will happen at the next election because I can't see who will replace Abbot. I suspect that Gillard will win the next election. It will be hard for women to resist the nostalgia of having a woman PM. Anyway, this 'reluctant PM' will be judged a 'lame duck' and dumped for the sake of Wayne Swan. So its musical chairs all around.
Really Australia, I suggest dumping this system of government. You will not get credible public policy this way. Centralised government and representative democracy does not work. Its empty promises equate to voter slavery and extortion. We need a meritocracy based on electronic submission of policies to committees where reason is the standard of value. If you can imagine a succession of 'vested interest groups' lodging submissions, some back office analysts picking over those ideas to establish policy, having a lawyer crafting them into coherent policy, you have my lower cost and more distributed form of government. Policy based on principles that integrate with other principles...just like human knowledge. Principles of nature, not 'numbers' counting which politicians selling out principles.

PS: In fairness to Abbot...I have not closely examined his psychology.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Sunday, May 16, 2010

The mythology of democratic-based freedom

Share |
Please debate me! In my last post I raised the prospect of rising fascism in Australia, and in fact all Western countries. Its not a new phenomena, its just that the prospects are becoming increasingly intellectual, and not simply economic. Society will tolerate certain inappropriate actions by government. But things get to a point where people's minds are being subverted, and fascism is allowed to escalate out of control without repudiation. The reason that there is no opposition is because the minority which might oppose it have no recourse to prevent it. This is the case today with IMF Australia being prevented by a government agency from obtaining certain information from the banks. This of course is not the end of the story. IMF can take the matter to the High Court to overrule ASIC, however this does not preclude the government from legislating to prevent any recourse.
The reason why I am calling for debaters is because I think just simply dismiss my assertions with little regard for my counter-arguments. So I open the opportunity for readers to debate me if they disagree.
I raised this issue in my local philosophy club. I think I left them worried. Certainly I left them thinking. I am the only one in the group under 55yo. Most of them are retired. One of the objected to my suggestion that democratic outcomes were arbitrary. Her argument was that when all stakeholders come together you get this lovely 'compromise'. The problem with a compromise is that its a departure from logic, and other people's capacity to comprehend or accept your argument. This is a problem because its justification for not seeking a consensus. Its justification for not reasoning with people, but simply imposing decisions upon them. i.e. How do you compromise with a thief. He comes to your house and demands at the point of a gun his right to your property. You say: 'I can't afford to lose these things'. He says 'OK, I'll compromise. You can retain half'. Maybe you accept his offer because he has a gun. But might you also think, that is not good enough because it is in-principle my property. You might get lucky, but so long as reason is not the standard of value is the extent to which you have no rights. But you know that because government does not wait for you to donate money to finance its activities, it instead imposes taxes upon you.
If someone is making an assertion, and you have the right to participate in the discussion, the process only has utility if your opinions have standing. It is not enough that they read your comprehension, they need to recognise its objective validity, or debate its invalidity with you. If they don't, then there is no prospect of reconciling ideas, and life becomes one of imposition, coercion, victimisation. This is therefore not a regime for freedom from oppression, democracy becomes a forum for legitimatising it.
An example was the call for submissions for human rights. My submission was not accepted because it did not meet the arbitrary standards of the Committee. Nevermind, I never thought it was going to serve any purpose anyway. It was always going to be a facade. The reason why a clergy was appointed was to give the process the 'appearance' of legitimacy, i.e. The church has the traditional high moral ground right? Well, less so I guess since the child molestation issues surfaced, but still the church has residual credibility which they do not deserve.
Another example was the uranium call for submissions. In this case, the government choses to acknowledge your contribution on some trivial or incidental way, like my assertion that 'there are 3 uranium mines' in Australia. This is expected to warm my stomach, to make me feel like a proud Australia. i.e. Like having your photo in the press. On the contrary, it made me feel like these people have utter control, and this process of parliamentary inquiries is really a rhetorical side-show.
So why is the parliamentary process and such processes which involve stakeholders inherently flawed? The reason is that participation is nothing but part of the story. Unless there is a requirement for opponents to challenge your assertions, then truth is not going to be established, one way or another. You cannot trust people to have empathy for your interests because they will argue that some other group will suffer greater loss, so they have more standing. It ought not to be a political vote. It ought to be a principled and rational outcome, which leaves all parties responsible to the extent that they had responsibility, and rewarded to the extent that they earned their concessions. These outcomes are best achieved by markets.
Take for instance the issue of tax? Its hard to say whether miners will pay more tax or less. They have a lot of power, but that is only advertising power. They need a moral argument to roll the government, and given everyone thinks 'rights' are entitlements, they will need to pay more taxes to pay your superannuation. There is of course competing principles here:
1. Your right to a public rent for the use of natural resources
2. Their right to know the outcomes before they invest. i.e. It would be unfair for them to be taxed at the proposed rate in those cases where they have spent money in support of those projects.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?