Understanding Julian Assange and Wikileaks

Share |

Sixty Minutes has prepared a 26minute interview with Julian Assange. You can see the YouTube footage below. This was a good interview, with no inherent bias, and very fair questions. The interview allayed my concerns that Julian Assange is motivated by dubious values. He identifies as a 'libertarian', which is superficially a healthy disposition, but ultimately it would be desirable about his deeper values. Why? Because he has the capacity to hurt people. There have been a few instances in which he has released information potentially injurious to people:

1. Informants in Afghanistan - This is a charge made by the US State Dept. This need not be valid criticism, but its noteeworthy, as the State Dept is surely politically biased.

2. Bank privacy - He has released private client documentation from people who are concealing assets in Swiss banks. He might argue that these people are tax evaders. The reality is that based on their values, they might have good reason to evade tax. i.e. They might not believe in taxation, or 'the system'. Ought they be persecuted by his standards?

This is worrisome coming from a Libertarian. The problem with his campaign is that there is every risk that he will not remain true to the US revolution tradition. More concerning is that he might make the same mistakes as it, by failing to develop a deeper philosophical conviction.

Irrespective of his future actions, he is not someone who ought to be persecuted. He is acting in 'good faith', and any lives lost through his actions are so small in number compared to the lives saved, they pale into insignificance. He is fighting a war against illegitimate government, and lives might be lost. But unlike the State Dept, he is not intentionally doing so. The State Dept in contrast, can be expected to kill people to force compliance. The State Dept does not want a repeat of WikiLeaks. It does not want a plethora of 'copy-cat' sites. The reality is that there is every prospect of that.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Lost graves a reminder of WWII holocaust

Share |

Workers who were digging up soil at an Austrian hospital have discovered a mass grave of 220 psychiatric patients interned at the hospital, but who were otherwise murdered by the Nazis in WWII. The discovery serves as a reminder to everyone of the immorality of collectivists, and not simply fascists. The same type of crimes were perpetrated by socialists and religious/mystic leaders. It matters little whether these acts are done in the name of God, the good or society, it ought to serve as recognition that self-interest, individualism, capitalism, is the only philosophical system which protects, respects and advances life. All forms of collectivism are immoral, anti-life, and destructive. They are a total lie, and they have to destroy all life in their desperate pretense to remain in control. They will start with deception, but in their desperation to preserve their subjective sense of reality, they will kill....usually in the name of the 'common good'.

So I ask you, have we learn the lesson that we need to learn. The answer is NO! Let me cite two pieces of evidence that I have seen recently - today and last week:

1. A commemorative plague in Queenstown, New Zealand, which celebrates or praises the lives lost during WWI. The plague hanging over the commemorative garden says 'Service Before Self'. This is collectivism, and this is the culmination of religious influence over values. If we politicised these values, we have collectivism. Hitler is quoted as saying 'You are nothing, your nation is everything'. So we can see that our forebears were merely ambivalent collectivists of the same ilk as Hitler. You might argue the we have more rights today. The reality however is that we don't. We have the pretense of rights, and that no 'political rights' are meaningful if we don't have economic rights. We are entitled only to be a slave if we are forced 'unconditionally' to pay tax. You are a slave in the service of some unnamed 'virtue' - the pursuit of the good of society. So let us see how this virtue manifests in contemporary life with my next example from NZ.

2. Bill English, the Minister of Finance in the NZ government was responsible for a gross breach of process. Was there corruption involved? It remains to be seen. More interesting to me is how he purported tried to defend himself. The minister's spokesperson advanced the 'virtue' of the contract, by arguing that it "was an injection of new money for Pacific problems and it should be celebrated". More problematic is the fact that we have a minister who will not account for his role in the issue...who needs to use a spokesperson. This is what happens with money coerced from taxpayers 'unconditionally'....there is no accountability, because there is no counterparty to ensure strict respect of the counterparties interest. This money can disappear, like those graves in Austria, overlooked for over 60 years.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Movement towards fascism

Share |

It is apparent that the West is moving towards fascism. It matters little what type it takes, or whether it is some new variety. Socialists like to lump all capitalists together so they can smear them in one fowl swoop. This collectivist thinking is described in the Socialist Manifesto. The reality is that we are moving towards fascism for two reasons:

1. Business leaders are so anti-intellectual, so antagonistic towards ideas, that they regard philosophy as all nonsense. For them its all about the practicalities. This is why in the face of a tax increase, they end up split, rather than united. We saw this with the Resource Rent Tax. The government did a deal with the two majors Rio Tinto and BHP, leaving the smaller industry players in a corner licking their wounds. Andrew Forrest, CEO of Fortescue Metals, was flip flopping from one side to the other. The problem is - they were split on their narrowly defined self-interests, and they ended up selling themselves off to the lowest bidder. Why? Because they did not understand the nature of ideology. They left small and large business divided, and now they have made government look 'reasonable' middlemen. This happened in previous wars as well. Historians will say capitalists sided with the govt. The CEOs of BHP and Rio Tinto are NOT capitalists, they are 'middlemen' or politicians with very little equity in the companies they control. Forrest is a capitalist, but sadly he is not a terribly smart one, and few among capitalists are great thinkers because they are 'practical people'. i.e. Goal motivated rather than with lofty, and most often detached ideas, which is why philosophy gets a bad name.

2. Ambivalent populous moved easily by any ideas. Yep, this is the Western population which had us going to war, the population which thinks rights are 'obligations and entitlements, rather than protections from such impositions. They are a product of religious and state-funded education and academia.

So are we going to war? Well I would suggest it will not be world war but sporadic periods of civil war. The reason I say this is because Western democracy is perfectly compatible with Chinese style government. The Chinese are docile under a hard-line government, but they will be no less collectivist under a more popular leader - the current deputy leader of the Community Military Council. He is married to a folk singer.

The only threat to this trend is really the internet. So how might government deal with that? Well, we can get a clue already. In the name of child protection, websites like mine will be blocked. If I put up any protestations, I will be threatened and then assassinated in the spirit of Philippines politics. This is collectivism.. the greatest good for the greatest number.

Capitalism will be claimed. The problem is the 'famed' market participants or 'pin up boys' of capitalism are not the CEOs...they are few and far between. I am one, the taxi driver who took you to work today might be one. You will not find them in government. They are people with a respect for freedom and ideas. But more importantly, their notion of freedom is not a subjective conception. It is an idea that coheres and corresponds to the rest of their knowledge.

It will be truly interesting to see where the Cameron bros take England in the next few years. I'll read with interest. Closer to home... I will watch with dismay as Australians 'capitalists' allow the Gillard government to expropriate their wealth with the Resource Rent Tax. Unsurprisingly the parasites are circling. State governments are fighting with the federal government for a cut. They are like 7 thieves trying to split with the cash. We can only hope they kill each other in a shoot out. But in the tradition of Western style democracy, I am sure that they will realise the greater practicality of splitting the loot...just as the Liberals and Labor agree to share power.

Are you expecting any protection from the courts. Don't. The courts are interpreting an arbitrary statutory law, which they consider has higher standing than common law. That is apparently because the people support statutory law. Such is the standing of democracy that the empty symbolism seems to carry so much significance. I don't vote, but I can't remember the last time I votes on any legislation. Nor can I remember an occasion when there was a party who represented me. I can't even conceive of a world where there was any prospect of a MP agreeing with me on everything. And I know these people don't have much life experience. They can't even get a job after parliament.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

You have to love competition, right?

Share |

The following article reminds me of the movie 'The Patriot' with Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger. Mel Gibson plays the role of a revolutionist, and in the Confederate parliament, he poses the question 'But why should I substitute a British tyrant 3000 miles away with one in my backyard'.

Its a good question...but that is precisely what one does when one accepts the initiation of force or coercion as a basis for political discourse. Which brings me to the question of the Australian federation, where you have two tyrants claiming a piece of your life, whether you are an investor or worker. The Australian government last year without warning stated that it was going to raise the royalties of minerals by 40% (aka Resource Rent Tax). This was after no consultation, and resulting in investors losing a great deal of value from their wealth.

Now we have the sorry situation of the states stepping in and saying they want their share of the 'spoil'. This is like two greedy colonial masters fighting over territory. The problem will of course end up in the High Court, where they will rule that the government had no business intruding in the affairs of the states. The Resource Rent Tax is a quasi-royalty, as much as they might dress it up as an income tax, and it is an attempt to steal wealth from shareholders, and now the states.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Democracy is driving us towards nationalism

Share |

We are witnessing a shift in many European countries towards nationalism, and this will by necessity entail greater fascism, since governments will accept every opportunity to assert their authority to preserve peace. I give people this warning because its inextricably the direction in which the world is heading. It will start in Europe for three reasons:

1. The cultural (racial and religiously defined) boundaries in Europe are looser in Europe than anywhere else. i.e. Its easier in the EU to jump a border for economic reasons than anywhere else.

2. The European cultures are more strongly collectivist than many other cultures, and with their Western traditional, they are more nationalistic than others.

3. Europe already has a historical legacy of fascist extremism, cultural persecution, so those elements will be resources to be used by extremists trying to incite violence.

Democracy as long been celebrated as an instrument to achieve democracy. The problem is that democracy has only been successful where it was adopted by a homogeneous culture, where minorities were so small, that they were less important, or the value disparities were insignificant. It is also evident that the collectivist baggage of welfare statism was not present in the past, and so thus minorities were always easier to tolerate. This is not the case in the modern world. Democracy has failed to provide a stable regime for the former Yugoslav states, its failing in the Middle East, and its unravelling as we speak in Germany.

People will tolerate democratic discourse if the disparities are incidental or the individual is sufficiently alienated by the weight of majoritism. This is not the case however when tyranny is socially defined as some sub-culture, most particularly when they are a group of persecuted, well-organised minorities.

Chancellor Angela Merkel blamed the doctrine of 'multiculturalism' for Germany's woes. But I would suggest the problem is not the policy per se, but democracy, which fails to reconcile opposing interest groups. It is difficult to tolerate a sub-culture which compels you to change your values, and you have difficulty expelling a sub-culture which has developed such deep roots, even citizenry in your midst. This is the problem with democracy. It does not reconcile the divergent values, but instead it allows one group of citizens to become an imposition on another, so we have victimisation on both sides. i.e. Germany is burdened by the alienation of 'lazy' Turks who see no reason to learn German, and Turks are disenfranchised by discrimination which makes any improvement impractical. This is a recipe for an escalation in ethic-based division. More problematic is when you have a self-righteous Chancellor Merkel saying 'take it or leave it'.

Germany did not welcome these Turks on the proviso that they spoke German or adopted Christian values. It has decided to adopt those standards after the fact. The other problem is the appearent nationalism in Merkel's statements. She assumes that Christian values are the proper ones to learn...irrespective of the fact that the distinction between Germans and Turks has less to do with religion and more to do with parenting and organisational styles or discipline. After all, Islam was derived from Judaic-Christian tradition, so that is hardly a point of contention. The common denominator however is a self-righteousness which could lead to violence, incited by either side.

Merkel suggests that the 'Turks should integrate' as if there was something special about German culture, and something intrinsically bad about Turkish values. That might be true of false, if one looked at the basis for either value system, however the problem is the implicit lack of objectivity. Nothing could incite racial violence more than the following remarks by Merkel:

Merkel: "We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here".

The problem of course is that no person should repudiate the values of others because they subjectively think their values are better than others. They ought to be reconciled in a forum where reason is the standard of value. The fact that Germans, to the extent that Merkel represents them, are not open to reason can only incite violence because they are likely to find Turks retain as much false pride as them, as just as little respect for reason.

WWIII - bring it on. Most people never learn.

Want to read more about Chancellor Merkel's speech - see Yahoo News.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

A soldiers or policeman's guide to ethics

Share |

The Sept 11th terrorist attack elevated the importance of firemen, police and military personnel. Politicians everywhere were praising the courage, skill and servitude of these people. Do you believe them? I really don't think our politicians say anything which can be taken at face value. It is all political spin. Not just their evasive remarks to escape some embarrassing folly, but also their praise. The reason I would suggest this is the following:

1. The military, the police, the fire brigade is a job like any other. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the amount of information you need to know. Particularly the police; but then if they end up doing mostly traffic infringements, and there are specialists dealing with any serious problems like a bank robbery, then I guess this also ceases to be true. If all of this is true, then this is really false praise for these servicemen.

2. The police and military pose a risk to the government. We saw in 2008 the overthrow of the Thai government in a military-led coup. The military in this case displayed loyalty to their commanders. Why? Because they are trained to take orders. From whom? Their military commanders or the government. Its difficult to listen to the PM when he is in exile.

From these examples it ought to be apparent that the military and other servicemen are open to moral questions. More interesting is that propensity of the 'political system' to actually discourage them from having any independent thoughts. They are required to simply follow the hierarchy of command. This is a problem...because this is entirely the type of dogmatism and anti-intellectualism that we were fighting in Germany....indeed most wars. Soldiers should not be amoral in the execution of their job.

The strongest defense for the 'chain of command' argument is that soldiers don't have time to think, so they simply need to follow orders. This is not a compelling argument for several reasons:

1. This dogmatism is displayed in peace time as well as war time

2. This dogmatism is displayed up the chain of command, so apparently none of them have the mental efficacy to question policy or strategy.

3. Opposition in most contexts favours better decision-making. We ought to have a primary respect for facts and reality. If, as leaders, we are not getting that feedback, we are inclined to become aloof, arrogant and insecure. This can only result in self-righteous action, and the needless death of servicemen.

4. Repression of ideas is unhealthy. I once asked a soldier how he would feel about fighting a war he did not believe in. He did not have an answer. This is precisely why many war veterans return home with a plethora of mental illnesses. Serving in the military is indeed a supreme sacrifice. Sacrificing your mind is the gravest sacrifice you can make. Its not a point of pride.

Clearly there is a context in which soldiers need to simply follow orders. i.e. On the battlefield when urgent, life-threatening decisions need to be made, there is good reason to subordinates to withhold their opinions until the matter can be dealt with. A subordinate ought not be obliged to fight under a leader whom they lack confidence in, and they ought to have the opportunity to have their opinions tested, whether its to weed out poor leaders, or to identify new ones.

The role of the police and military is not simply to protect a country from foreign invaders. It is also to protect the people from internal corruption. Most wars are the result of civil immorality. It is much easier for a leader to justify breaches of national interest than invade a foreign country. The same can be said of physical abuse. Rape is far more common among people known to the offender. The reason is that:

1. Its easier to justify

2. There is greater reason to expect no consequences

There are of course a number of different or competing elements to government:

1. Executive - The part of government which executes the administration of government

2. Legislature - The part of government which enacts laws. In Australia, we have the folly of the executive being part of the legislature. This is folly, as is any system which allows their affiliation.

3. Judiciary - The part of government which interprets the law. The judiciary is criticised for 'making law' with some controversial decisions. The reality however is that it too has the capacity to make law. Any interpretation of the law is in effect making law, as its applying the law to a particular context. I would suggest that the judiciary fails in this regard because it is not protecting the spirit of the constitution. i.e. Reason as the standard of value.

4. Police & military - The part of government which preserves government and the sovereignty of the nation through the enforcement of the law.

There are important moral questions about who the military ought to follow? In a civil crisis, ought the police and military side with the executive, the courts or the legislature, or do they adopt their own agenda. My view is that they ought to have no particular allegiance other that to their own moral conscience. I would hope that they have one, but the culture of the military appears to be one of unthinking servitude, which is destined to serve immorality rather than morality.

Reason ought to be their standard of value, whether it lies with the judiciary, the executive, or the parliament. The reality is that society only descends to this point because the competitive regime in which government has functioned has broken down, i.e. reason has ceased to be the standard of value.

The problem with government is that it is based on 'numbers', so reason has never explicitly the standard of value. Government has become about extortion. It was always about power. Before it was about physical power - who controlled the military. Today, its about symbolic power because power is dispersed. Taxing powers, media power, financial power, etc. Even foreign governments and corporations can weigh into debates. The lone logical individual counts for nothing. A vote is s symbolic gesture. It counts for nothing. This is why I don't vote, and instead attempt to educate. I don't even both educating for the sake of changing your vote. That would support a bad system. My intent is to educate those organisations which count...those with the ability to influence:

1. The judiciary - I want to encourage judicial activism, as we have seen in India. Difficult because they are creatures of tradition, even if traditions were ill-founded centuries earlier.

2. The media - Difficult because they are mostly lefty liberals with no respect for objectivity

3. Business leaders - Difficult because they are not great conceptual thinkers. Their practicality stems from their willingness to work with anyone. They offer concessions to government if they cannot vote with their feet.

4. Military leaders - Difficult because they have this arbitrary power from a legacy of dogmatism. So they are not destined to be great thinkers.

Anyway, progress is slow.....I am destined to be overwhelmed because there are simply too few people in the world who think, and few practical benefits in preserving an honesty perspective. The only prize is my own self-respect. :)

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Is fascism on the increase in Australia

Share |

In early May 2010 IMF Australia was being swamped by bank customers dismayed by the bank fees charged by the largest Australian banks. Despite transactions costs of less than $1, the banks were often charging between $15 t0 $65 in Australia.

IMF established FinancialRedress.com.au to enlist bank customers in a nationwide class action. The company had 20,000 supporters for its actions before the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) ruled that it would (favour the banks) by not giving IMF access to disclosure information from the bank.

The move highlights the cozy relationship between the government and the banks. The first responsibility of the government ought to be to protect the legal rights of its citizens, and yet here was a case of a government agency acting as an obstacle to the people reclaiming an estimated $5 billion in bank fees which clearly many Australian bank customers consider excessive.

The other important responsibility is to define objective principles for rights. Unfortunately the West has not really given full recognition to those political rights sanctioned by the United Nations under the Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other declarations. Many countries argue that these rights do not reconcile with their own political systems, or that they have already protected these rights. The reality however is that only limited protection is offered. Another problem is the failure to protect economic rights. Political rights which do not extend to economic rights are superfluous because in a highly organised society no one can afford to lose all of their economic wealth. The gross violation of economic rights is imposed under the rhetoric of economic rights. The problem is that governments have conjured up economic rights (with the help of vocal socialists and liberals) which constitute impositions upon the rights of others. This is logically a contradiction in terms. i.e. Your right to free health care is an imposition upon doctors to provide that care, and an opern-ended commitment by others to finance it. Rights have ceased to be 'protections', and are not imposed as 'obligations'. The manifest outcome of such a system is that economic values are no longer earned, they are assumed as entitlements. We have long recognised the failure of socialism, but we refuse to acknowledge the slow drift to values within Western society towards fascism, as we saw in Germany in the 1940s. We are once again failing to learn from history. Germany was particularly vulnerable because of its philosophical legacy of Kant, Hegel, etc. Today, you might be surprised how reverred these philosophers are among Western academics.

Another possible explanation for the government's move is the recognition that they ought to have acted sooner. Their tardiness in regulating the banks could possibly be censured by the Supreme Court.

We are accustomed to governments fighting for freedom in far-away lands, but such actions by government highlight the spectre of fascism in our own backyards. The plethora of statutory law developed in recent years appears to be limiting the recognition of our Common Law rights to justice. The difference between Common Law and Statutory Law is the nature of how the law is developed. Common law is based on principles of justice. Statutory law is arbitrary. It balances arguments, but it does not seek rationality, integrity or to resolve disputes. Readers might like to ask themselves to what extent these outcomes are rational. A great number of statutory laws were enacted to address the flaws in previous enacted laws. The problem is that one arbitrary law is held out of context, requiring another arbitrary law to correct loopholes or exceptions. The result has been an ineffective, costly legal system, and true arbitrary outcomes, where people have no certainty over their outcome. For this reason, few people have the finances to challenge outcomes, nor to seek legal remedies. The consequence is thus an asymmetrical and arbitrary relationship with governments and corporations, which very much defines fascism. People expect to see goose-stepping military battalions marching done the street, but fascism is, like other forms of tyrannical collectivism, an expression of the ethical principle that your interests as an individual are arbitrarily subordinated to the good of society. That is an arbitrary standard, so society often declines into a state tyranny where it is the good of the government which is preserved with the help of media, banks and large corporations fearful of being marginalised. Here is a case of the government siding with the banks. Here is a display of fascism.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com