The adverse impacts of religion on libertarianism

Share |

Libertianism is a 'dirty political movement'. The sad reality is that it shouldn't be. Its dirty not in terms of its motivations or political strategy, so much as its underlying motivations or values, and the problem in this respect comes down to religion. Libertarianism is dominated by conservatives. Worse because the libertarian movement has even appended themselves to the conservatives. The problem is that, by appending themselves to conservatives, whether the Republican Party in the USA, the Tories in the UK, the National Party in NZ, the Liberal-National Party in Australia, and the Conservative Party in Canada, they are doing the following:
1. They are allowing Conservative religious persons to determine the underlying values of the party
2. They are aligning themselves with the incoherent values of the Conservatives
3. They are denying themselves a political identity and a value proposition

The problem with appending themselves to the Conservatives is that they ultimately are delimited by the relationship. They can't grow because they don't convey an independent identity, and they retain only the mere 'sanction' of a 'faction' of the Conservative Party. The problem is more serious in the USA because of the first-past-the-post voting system precludes minor parties from achieving any substantial vote outside the Senate; and even then its hard to get the publicity.

The libertarian movement simply needs to split into its constituent 'factions'. The reason why it needs to do that is because whatever group you construe as 'right' or 'good', they need to convey integrity in order to win. The libertarian party cannot convincingly do that where they are simply an alignment of interests wanting small government. Unfortunately libertarians are so disjointed or uncoordinated, they have a split in organisation, so not only do you not have a division of organisational units on the basis of values, but as in NZ, you will confront a litany of organisational units split on the basis of personalities. In NZ there are 4 main parties; plus 4 very minor libertarian parties. This would be great if they had different policies and values, but they don't. They are all conservative-based parties for the most part. They just differ in degrees...which is inevitably the problem if you have a movement based on 'dogma' rather than contextual principles. The parties in NZ are:
1. ACT Party - gained 1.7% of the vote - its been as high as 8% in prior election
2. Conservative Party - gained 1.3% of the vote
3. Libertarianz - not party structure yet
4. New Liberal Party - new party, nationalism based

There are another of other parties too who could be construed as 'conservative' like NZ First, and of course the centre-right government of John Key's National Party, but they are by no means libertarian. There is also a Decriminalisation Party for marijuana that has a lot of 'grass roots' support. All of the parties above are libertarian if the measure is 'advocacy of small government. The problem is that they are simply splitting the vote. There is no substantive difference between these parties. ACT might be construed as 'conservative' on certain issues more than others because they lack some of the 'dogmatism' we'd associate with conservatives. In fact I find them quite 'contextually' or intellectually engaged on some issues, but on other issues they inevitably fall into conservative The type of division that would actually expand the 'libertarian pie' would be the following split:
1. Randian-style intellectual libertarians - advocating self interest is good; its just an 'enlightened' self-interest
2. Conservative Christian libertarians - perhaps swinging from National support - I would suggest the Christian reconciliation of self interest and social interest/identity demands utilitarianism.
3. Anarcho-capitalist/socialists - who advocate decriminalisation of drugs - a causeless movement which is simply anti-authority, perhaps somewhat jaded or disparaged by personal experience or observation, all too ready to 'dispense with th bathwater'.

This is why it is ultimately hard for the right to expand its market because ultimately it is not an intellectual movement. If politics is going to change, it needs to become intellectual, because the labour/Greens/Nationalist/Maori movements are united in their extortion-based politics of expropriating wealth. There is very little between the Greens and Labour; other than the pragmatism of Labour which sees them selling our or compromising with business in order to win some financial support in the wake of union decline. You'd think this would have led to a renaissance of ideas and the libertarian party driving it. That cannot happen as long as you have Conservatives driving the agenda. We know that libertarianism splits Conservatives and Liberals - so why the focus on 'economic criteria'? You'd have to wonder, particularly since few people would be looking for a radical change in political outcomes, if only because it takes time to change a system - right?

So what is the nature of the Christian scourge. Well, let's examine some libertarian values to explain the superficiality of their 'conservative' values, and why its a point of contention that's not addressed. The following quotes are a series of extracts from the Acton Institute, a Christian libertarian group in the US. I want to convey the problem with their values or 'core principles'.

"Dignity of the Person - The human person, created in the image of God, is individually unique, rational, the subject of moral agency, and a co-creator. Accordingly, he possesses intrinsic value and dignity, implying certain rights and duties both for himself and other persons. These truths about the dignity of the human person are known through revelation, but they are also discernible through reason".

Well, we immediately fall prey to the dogmatism of intrinsic value of humanity by the grace of god. The problem with this is the failure to distinguish between conditional value and inherent value. A value is something we act to gain or keep. Its contextual relevance lies with particular people, however generally it can be said to apply to a certain type of person, a consciousness to be sure, but what we are concerned with is the 'rational value' as the basis of a modern society that respects values. Dignity by necessity has to be earned. So its not intrinsic; though the capacity is intrinsic. Rights don't come from having 'dignity'; they come from a conceptual agreement demanding a consensus on terms, or an objective understanding of terms. So we can see here that Acton Institute attempts to reconcile reason and divine revelation. And what would they do if these paradigms crossed paths? They'd simply abandon rationality that defied their divinity.

'Social Nature of the Person - Although persons find ultimate fulfilment only in communion with God, one essential aspect of the development of persons is our social nature and capacity to act for disinterested ends. The person is fulfilled by interacting with other persons and by participating in moral goods. There are voluntary relations of exchange, such as market transactions that realize economic value. These transactions may give rise to moral value as well. There are also voluntary relations of mutual dependence, such as promises, friendships, marriages, and the family, which are moral goods. These, too, may have other sorts of value, such as religious, economic, aesthetic, and so on".

This is nonsense of course because a great many people arrive at fulfilment without ever recognising the existence of God. It is equally concerning that these people should make 'social values' more critical than personal values, which they pay scant regard for. They suggest that a person is fulfilled by others. I would argue that whilst others can be a source of validation, they cannot and should not be a substitute for personal  mental understanding. A person's ultimately earns self-esteem by taking pride in a personal contribution to a group, or in their personal sense of efficacy. These Christians might be inclined to preclude divorce, because whilst its a 'voluntarily' relationship, if people marry for 'good or worse', that would preclude divorce. You'd think so based on their conceptual foundation of altruism and social contract. That entails marriage as 'indentured servitude'. Of course they would no doubt sanctify the 'marriage relationship' as a blessing, in which case they are either giving humans an omniscience they don't deserve, or they are sanctifying the marriage as 'god's gift'. This last option introduces dogmatism and the spectre of any 'unfettered' rationalisation to achieve 'god's will'. So state socialism is an abomination; but family chosen socialism is 'pride in renunciation'. This rests on the idea of voluntarism, which they don't make much of a case for. Should people indenture themselves to a relationship for a lifetime? Well, I'd argue 'no' because ultimately people change, for good or worse, and among those qualities which compels change is the 'discretion' of counterparties not to sanction misconduct, or to betray their interests. But of course relationships don't just break for moral breaches. There are more implicit or complex aspirational and security values determined by our experience, intellectual state and psychology. Conservative servitude gives no consideration to these issues. You enter into a marital contract, you defy it and think less of yourself, or you find some pride in renouncing your personal interests....at least until you can earn the right to be morally indignant. The Christian is destined to tire of their self-righteousness....and you can expect spurious rationalisations to ultimately defend their actions, which on the day, are going to look highly 'distorted' or misproportionate. i.e. You wanted low-fat milk rather than full cream milk, and you didn't think that was a deal breaker.

"Importance of Social Institutions - Since persons are by nature social, various human persons develop social institutions. The institutions of civil society, especially the family, are the primary sources of a society's moral culture. These social institutions are neither created by nor derive their legitimacy from the state. The state must respect their autonomy and provide the support necessary to ensure the free and orderly operation of all social institutions in their respective spheres".

Social institutions are indeed important, but Acton Institute have inverted their role. They are not a 'source of society's morality', they are an expression of it. You don't get morality from an institution, but rather expect institutions to be structured to affirm certain moral principles, and that those principles are compatible with your own, or you don't sanction those groups. Why must the state support these 'social institutions'? They don't; but instead, they support those who finance support for those institutions. Of course some institutions which in some respect serve government, whether by creating jobs or sanctioning their policies, will indeed find favour with government.

Human Action - Human persons are by nature acting persons. Through human action, the person can actualize his potentiality by freely choosing the moral goods that fulfill his nature.

Not a lot of depth to their ethical prescriptions here. That perhaps explains why they argued above that morality devolves from institutions. If anyone thought they were coming from God, i.e. from the sermon on the mount, people are likely to get a little apprehensive. So we are natural, we are voluntary, we are rational. So why do people break the law, and where is the compelling reason not to? I would argue that there is basically two fundamental justifications for crime, and thus two justifications for offering support to people to avoid crime. Those reasons are (i) 'destitution' as a motivator. If you are going to lose your life, you will do anything to preserve it. This is just common sense because you are effectively pre-moral since morality pertains to a higher 'abstract' framework of values. This is of course why sending British convicts in the 18th century off to Australia did not result in a crime wave there; because their needs for food were in the first instance met, whilst in Britain, they were estranged from that capacity. A conviction for stealing bread. A little disproportionate most would say. But this is the 'morality of causeless renunciation' that persisted at the time. There was no rational science; only the morality of 'non-self' which alienated a person's ego, and would unquestionably make them jaded.

Sin: Although human beings in their created nature are good, in their current state, they are fallen and corrupted by sin. The reality of sin makes the state necessary to restrain evil. The ubiquity of sin, however, requires that the state be limited in its power and jurisdiction. The persistent reality of sin requires that we be sceptical of all utopian "solutions" to social ills such as poverty and injustice.

This is a highly implausible framework of understanding for morality, which conveys a lack of understanding of human nature, i.e. an ancient ignorance founded on 'ancient' ideas accepted dogmatically. Not all people are good, not all are bad, but they are some degree of both for different reasons, in varying contexts. The notion that political power should be constrained because people cannot trust governments might equally apply to any wealthy people, large companies, smart people who intimidate apprehensive people. After all, selfishness is sinful. So why does this not translate into a socialism? Well, it does really in a belated form called utilitarianism, where people take in order to give. Making or profiting is to redistribute at your 'voluntary' discretion. No pressure though; well perhaps a little guilt and political pressure from extorting liberals, and the inevitable fact that you can't take your wealth to heaven or hell, and besides, you don't really like your children do you? This is of course the moral bankruptcy of Conservatism. It really doesn't explain the origin of sin. It suggests that lofty ideas are utopian, irrespective of their value or argument. Moral scepticism abounds - except when viewed through the eyes of the Lord. I think people would be surprised how little state is actually required if it society was based on healthy values. I think they might question how healthy society would be if government was not the presiding 'authority' extorting in the first place, then acting as a misplaced custodian in the second place.

Rule of Law and the Subsidiary Role of Government - The government's primary responsibility is to promote the common good, that is, to maintain the rule of law, and to preserve basic duties and rights. The government's role is not to usurp free actions, but to minimize those conflicts that may arise when the free actions of persons and social institutions result in competing interests. The state should exercise this responsibility according to the principle of subsidiarity. This principle has two components. First, jurisdictionally broader institutions must refrain from usurping the proper functions that should be performed by the person and institutions more immediate to him. Second, jurisdictionally broader institutions should assist individual persons and institutions more immediate to the person only when the latter cannot fulfill their proper functions.

This is a further reinforcement of the idea that religion's moral code of altruism culminates in socialism; not in the first instance, but the second. After serving your needs, you are obliged to serve others. In fact, your selfishness in the form of market participation is ultimately only to serve others. You take to serve others. This was of course the romantic idea behind Robin Hood. Simply ending taxes did not have the same romance as stealing back for noble motives. The best form of slavery is the one that gives. People are not an end in themselves; others are ultimately the end. This of course gives rise to a great deal of hypocrisy, and in these stakes, the liberals are not better, because in the case of their altruism, they want the wealthy to give; at the very least, more than them.

Interestingly, Acton Institute contradicts itself here. It argues for rule of law, but then argues that local jurisdictions have more credence as moral agents because they are closer to the person. For me, this ultimately becomes a point of argument because national agencies might have more skills, but a local agency might have more understanding of the specific context of the case. It really doesn't deal with issues when governments are immoral; though it doesn't seem to constrain governments so much that this could not be a problem. Really, it matters very little if you are subjected to local or distant justice; what matters is that it presides over reasonable law. More skilled legislatures afar makes more sense if they are accountable. By accountability I don't mean the unconditional sanction given to a 'representative'. What is this notion of representation anyway? How did it come to be, that we had representation, but no inkling as to whether they were representing our views, or their best estimate of what is good for us. Is that 'estimate' implausible without knowing the context of our lives. Actually it does not matter if we have the discretion to not sanction them - but we are forced to pay tax and in so doing to sanction their institutions, and ultimately to even accept laws that are often flawed, simply because legal tradition never bothered much with integrity.

"Creation of Wealth - Material impoverishment undermines the conditions that allow humans to flourish. The best means of reducing poverty is to protect private property rights through the rule of law. This allows people to enter into voluntary exchange circles in which to express their creative nature. Wealth is created when human beings creatively transform matter into resources. Because human beings can create wealth, economic exchange need not be a zero-sum game".

This is fine as a political solution; but we might ask why wealthy people are not educating the poor to be wealthy. Its not as if they are offering, and are being shot down. They are just not asking. Now, they might rationalise that people need to learn to be independent. But who is to teach them that message? Experience? If its experience, we might wonder why we are all ultimately sinful, because aren't we destined to be good by experience. It does not seem to be working. Might that be because of the lack of intellectual engagement by dogmatic Christian libertarians. Yes, the wonders of capitalism are something to be praised; but how is capitalism compatible with 'faith' except as an equivocation called 'confidence'. We must succeed before we can sustainably bestow our 'utilitarian' surplus upon others. We might however empathise with a wealthy Christian if they were fearful and apprehensive? Reading the Bible, about people 'sinful by nature' and growing atheism, we might wonder if this explains the apparent tragic absence of giving by business people in a Christian country. I don't see Americans drawing that tangent because the bible is fare removed from their lives. But I would suspect that taxation steals the 'nobility' of people to be good Christians. Is the tragedy ultimately that people are spurned into giving; and that paradoxically causes them to fight against giving. i.e. Is the American state making us selfish? But here is my answer - yes - but more importantly - the Christian conception of altruism is backwards. We need to take care of our well-being; and when we do that, we have a natural propensity to take care of others, because we love problem solving. In any country, problem solvers are alienated from and by the 'political process'. Americans though are the most charitable of all, just lack the knowledge to be more charitable because of specialisation, dubious incoherent values resulting in intractable problems. This is why materialistic commercialism has such appeal, and why Bill Gates probably needed to become tired of Microsoft before he helped others. He even conveyed that business does not know how to help people.
We might also examine the mechanics of labour pricing in the context of the current world. Should the utilitarian Christian be giving to charity, or simply be paying their workers more. If the 'noble gesture' is to give to charity, then clearly only a few retiring billionaires are 'contextually' so motivated and appropriately so. Australia has a minimum wage of $15/hour, compared to $7-8/hour in the US.  The difference is that commodities have for the last decade been a huge boon for Australia, so they can afford it. The Australian unemployment rate is 5.5% compared to 7.5% in the US. I'm not criticising market pricing, but wondering why America is not so pensive towards skilled labour? In Europe, people are skilled labourers. The tendency is to simply outsource to emerging markets. Did the US overstate the benefits of Asia and Mexican outsourcing, or did they have other strategic motivations? Whether avoiding tax or growing global market share? Perhaps they simply found Asian governments easier to deal with. It is not as if they have sabotaged their nations capacity to invest in  labour. Workers could have upskilled and certainly some did. Perhaps the problem is that the unskilling was regional, and the mid-West simply was not aspirational or connected with global markets to benefit. The problem I would argue is mixed and unequal. Some who got the skills training benefited whilst those who did not have been replaced with Asian labour. These people live in the same community; and comprise the have's and have nots. You see the same in Asia. Some families who have siblings abroad are rolling in money, whilst others are struggling day-to-day. It seems to be the unevenness of the experience. The positive in Asia is that you are inevitably priced cheap because your cost of living is low, and your economy is growing at 7% per annum. There is still a skills distinction to make as well. Filipino programmers are earning a shrinking discount to those in the West. Their skilled labour justifies higher wages. It is fair to say that 'formal' employment has lost out to informal illegal aliens as well, as people have sought to avoid tax. That is simply one of those distortive, false economies introduced by government. So we can see we have government 'distortions' which are the responsibility of government, and we have government distortions which markets are correcting.
Are Christians simply too tragic or apprehensive to offer any 'altruistic value'? I make no imposition upon them. I am against coercive expropriation. We might ask whether in the market place they should at least be bestowing their 'utilitarian surpluses' upon counterparties with less? Should they not construe that economic surplus as a gift for the poor? I don't want people to do so; but that might be construed as the implication of their utilitarian values. Well, let me give them a bone. In the current context of global labour markets, there is more utilitarian value in a corporation or wealthy individual investing in more jobs in emerging markets than than there is in giving people higher wages. They are certainly doing this to some extent. But here we are in recession, and it makes less sense to develop capacity, and competition makes it hard to raise wages. There is simply no market incentive to do so. Markets are frugal and we need to respect markets for that. I might also mention that extortive liberals are demanding higher (minimum) wages in the West or for corporations to bring jobs back home. This ought to dispel the idea that liberals are in fact caring people, for they seem to be 'self-destructively' spurning the interests of Asians, who have the capacity to generate more jobs. This of course assumes that the motive for US companies investing abroad is purely cheaper labour. The reality is 'tax concessions' might be an important reason....in which case, its 'evil government' again distorting markets. The parochial liberal seems once more to be a 'market destroyer' along with government.

The problem of excess global labour arose from authoritarian government and we need to repudiate this as a framework for 'distortion' and not curse capitalism - the cure. So, in this context, it seems sensible to accept that it takes time for markets to create the distortions created by authoritarian governments in the third world. The best we can do is remove the unjustified 'arbitrary' imposts on business, so they can remedy the problem as quick as possible. So accumulation of capital is a reasonable rationalisation that business can make for now. When labour is fully absorbed in 20 years time, we can expect business to face higher wages. That's not to say that workers should have to wait 20 years to 'earn' just wages, the argument is that justice demands unfettered markets free of the distortive impacts of government to function effectively.

"Economic Liberty - Liberty, in a positive sense, is achieved by fulfilling one's nature as a person by freely choosing to do what one ought. Economic liberty is a species of liberty so-stated. As such, the bearer of economic liberty not only has certain rights, but also duties. An economically free person, for example, must be free to enter the market voluntarily. Hence, those who have the power to interfere with the market are duty-bound to remove any artificial barrier to entry in the market, and also to protect private and shared property rights. But the economically free person will also bear the duty to others to participate in the market as a moral agent and in accordance with moral goods. Therefore, the law must guarantee private property rights and voluntary exchange".

The Acton Institute construe 'liberty' to be, not so much a 'gift of god' but a 'trade' in which you start down, and you have to conditionally earn your rights by fulfilling certain obligations. This they call freedom. You are 'duty-bound' to remove barriers in the market; one suspects for the same of the 'utilitarian' common good. We are duty-bound to act in the market place, where own interests as a trader are somewhat removed from us. I frankly don't see how you can construe market activity as anything other than selfish. Market action is based on self-interest; your good, not the counterparts. This is not a license to cause injury, but a question of responsibility. The fact that people guiltily subscribe to others good after the fact, is another 'action' driven by another motive. No one enters trade to lose or surrender all gains, yet the market is indifferent to your non-profit; though it might conceivably have an interest in your loss if you have much to lose. But this is not compatible with any conception of capitalism that I'm familiar with. But then it is, it is compatible with Bill Gates life, given that he can afford to be indifferent to loss. But never so much loss as to give away more than that which he cannot take with him, or to sustain himself to the end of his life, nor is he so humble as to surrender control of his money. That's not to say it was simply a theme to avoid tax.It was probably the best possible means to do what he wanted to do. Why did he wait so long before doing it? It was not a humble decision. He did not humbly consign the job to another. He did not think himself the lesser man to do it. There was rather the pride of efficacy. So where is the personal renunciation here? He thought himself up to the task. Other billionaires will probably simply outsource to his foundation. Good decision? I personally think his philanthropic focus is anti-intellectually focused on doing what markets could be doing if the fundamental abstract issues were being addressed. Having said that, clearly he is not the man for that job. Since he is saving lives and not sabotaging Microsoft Word, the markets appear to be belatedly working. :)

"Economic Value - In economic theory, economic value is subjective because its existence depends on it being felt by a subject. Economic value is the significance that a subject attaches to a thing whenever he perceives a causal connection between this thing and the satisfaction of a present, urgent want. The subject may be wrong in his value judgment by attributing value to a thing that will not or cannot satisfy his present, urgent want. The truth of economic value judgments is settled just in case that thing can satisfy the expected want. While this does not imply the realization of any other sort of value, something can have both subjective economic value and objective moral value".

Economic values are subjective in the sense that they pertain 'contextually' to particular people with specific needs in the specific context of their lives. There is also an over-arching objective value as well, which pertains to the fact that we are living in a world where humans have a particular nature, particular capacities, which are shared with all other humans, and that there are universal values that derive from that nature, like self-esteem, pride, honesty, and human rights. We might wonder what the 'economic Christian' considers to be 'sinful'. Is it the urgency of wanting, or the means they are prepared to go to get it? Everything is subjectively wanted, though we cannot argue that its a subjective value. The objective value derives from its reconciliation with our nature. A thing is either life-affirming or life-negating.

"Priority of Culture - Liberty flourishes in a society supported by a moral culture that embraces the truth about the transcendent origin and destiny of the human person. This moral culture leads to harmony and to the proper ordering of society. While the various institutions within the political, economic, and other spheres are important, the family is the primary inculcator of the moral culture in a society".

There is ultimately a denial or betrayal of causation in this argument because it suggests that the 'truth' is not for us to know, but for us to accept 'voluntarily'. We are passive, compliant sould subjugated to God's standards. This is not destined to work out for us in a political realm where indignant liberals are destined to control power and drive Christians to moral acquiescence, as occurred during WWII.  Morality does not spring from 'heaven eternal', it needs to be fostered in people's minds. The Christian offers no explanation for the escalation of 'sin'. He can only decry the growing selfishness; which is not even an accurate explanation of affairs. In what sense can we consider family the foundation for morality. Ultimately the children are 'blank canvasses' and the parents draw upon historic 'Christian' values - not completely without conscious conviction, but since rationality is not compatible with faith (i.e. acceptance without evidence), there is no prospect of mental efficacy here. Don't we have to look towards the trained values of the parents. I might add that there is no track record of moral rectitude from Christian or state schools. Why? I'd argue that they are equally scornful of the mind.

In this essay it is evident that Christianity ultimately results in a utilitarian perspective of the good, as Christians seek to reconcile the 'selfish' market place with the good of others. I once asked by conservative grandfather why he was a Christian with a high regard for markets. I said to him that markets entail the self-interested trade of value for value. If we don't derive a value, we don't trade. Christianity expounds the importance of giving, not taking. So how does he reconcile these. He was very upset with me for these comments. I dare say, conveying that faith was incompatible with reason; and that his disdain for my comments was actually a deflected disdain for his incapacity to answer me. I'd say that he was actually not prepared to answer these  'unidentified' issues. It is easy to accept that he did not want to judge himself, as life required judgement, but when one judges oneself, one is destined to find truth or error; and he could not acknowledge the inconsistency that would ultimately betray his values. Ultimately this moral ambivalence comes to bite people. In his case, he would lose a great deal of wealth fighting a court case where he simply did not have the legal support or personal conviction to ensure the outcome he deserved. The point of issue; a solicitor who was able to reverse a property purchase at the peak of the 1987 bubble on a technicality. The $4mil property was sold later for $1.8 million because the purchaser could not build a tennis court.

Addendum - Issues raised by a reader
My primary concern here was Christianity and libertarianism, although I do take issue broadly with liberals. I do not deal specifically with Christian liberals. They might well see coercive policy as 'utilitarian', or they might regard altruism as practical as direct intervention, i.e. forcing people to be good. I'd argue that it has the opposite impact, causing people to 'react' and spurn their minds for self-preservation, ultimately culminating in a tragic outcome of evading persecution.
One reader makes an interesting point which I should have drawn attention to explicitly, and that is his argument that "the United States libertarianism represents a belief in freedom in all aspects of society". I have a problem with this because I believe in conveys a 'conservative' repression to not judge 'social' values. It is not that we should not judge, as a Christian purports not to judge, its to say that, unless there is causal reason to attribute another's actions as injurious to us, then we should not be intruding in their lives. i.e. Gay marriage. Unless we can prove that gay marriage injures others, its not reasonable to make negative constraints upon them. Creating a civil union structure is judging them adversely. This argument therefore strikes me a a rationalisation or compartmentalisation of economic and social values. This of course is why the 'conservative' is able to impose their social values upon people. Their 'social value' intrusion, particularly in the context of the family, is destined to have critical 'material' or 'economic' impacts. Leave it to a Christian household to destroy the mind of their children. Are all Christians so jaded? Of course not. But ultimately, they are not 'saved' by faith or dogma; they live and prosper in spite of it. They have a better chance than in pre-Industrial Middle East. American Christians are therefore, thanks to some persuasive rationalisations relatively healthy and productive people. The issue is therefore one of optimising integrity.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Divide and destroy?

Share |

Ever wondered how the world in future will be divided? The old paradigm was 'divide and conqueror'. The new paradigm is 'divide and destroy'. The fact is that life has gotten complicated. We were blissfully ignorant centuries ago; and now we think we are start. In this game its not a question of smart or dumb, its moral relativism. But here is the thing, aside from the absoluteness of truth, there is actually a context in which events occur. This is not a paradox, its a perspective. Conscious interprets a real world; but it does so from a particular context. This is true of facts and values. 

So the adage of 'divide and conqueror' is a little tired when the absolute state has already essentially won the game. There is just a few rogue states to rein in, but otherwise statehood is well-entrenched. The Wild West these days is one of the few places where you can actually have the freedom you might like, aside from Pakistan and those other rogue states. 

So its interesting that Julian Assange and others are controlling this space. Interesting however is that a group, claiming to be opposed to Wikileaks, has actually sought to 'destroy' his website. These people claim to be defending our state...defending justice. This organisation claims to be independent, but I would argue that this is an organisation set up and sponsored by the US government in order to attack Wikileaks. Why? Well, its a rationalisation for war isn't it. 

Justice is whatever the US wants it to be? They don't want to wait for a trial. They claim to be defenders of justice. But if that was the case, where is the moral principle directing their actions. There is none. This is a testament to the emptiness of the US Constitution. Yes, a framework of concrete law that makes no provisions for a moral context, unless they are talking about a vacuous, context-dropping, dogmatic religious 10 Commandments. This might well be the philosophical basis upon which the Anti-Leaks - the self-proclaimed defenders of justice was formed. I thought the US Constitution enacted a police and military force to defend ourselves from vigilantes. Well, this one seeks moral rectitude, not in legal means, but the anonymity of the internet. 

The practices of the government do not bother them because they are paid stooges of the US government seeking to avoid accountability. They are the terrorists. Does not the US government hunt down organisations that break into its 'secure' sites? Well, that is what Anti-Leaks claims to have done. They are not anarchists - they are politically-aligned bureaucratic despots.

There is no question in my mind that Julian Assange does not represent the best values in the world. There is no question that he is not a moral agent open to accountability. But by that standard of value, neither is the US government. It is even worse. In this context, I would far prefer to see the existence of WikiLeaks, than I would prefer to see their destruction. So I celebrate the disclosure of public information which would never see the light of day under Freedom of Information requests. Where is the evidence that any information released by WikiLeaks has done any damage to the US? 

In this context, I would prefer to see the retention of Cuba, North Korea, China, Russia and Syria, rather than see these states subordinate themselves to US values. To be sure these states do not represent the best of values, but for the mere sake of competition, I would prefer to preserve their existence - at least as some form of opposition to US complicity or moral relativism. For I know without any standard of comparison, we will surely face tyranny from the United States. Representative democracy, as we have discussed elsewhere, is a form of tyranny. It is the subjugation of freedom-loving people to the collective. You will derive no objective notion of rights from it. See Wikileaks here.

Andrew Sheldon: "AntiLeaks are either severely misguided people, or they are working for the US govt. Since when was US govt justice objective? Since when was justice the providence of internet vigilante groups? I thought hacking into web servers was a crime? Well, the US govt thought so, until they needed to stop some embarrassing press releases".

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The responsibility of judges - they don't understand

Share |

District Court Judge David Harvey: “New Zealanders need to involve themselves in a forthcoming review of copyright law or they will "suffer what the conglomerates and corporates" hand to them”. (1)

I have a huge problem with a judge telling me that my way of protecting myself from unfair laws is to participate in a process in which reason is not the standard of value; whether at the point of enacting legislation (because people are not participating in the process) or at the point of judicial consideration (because the judge seems impervious to the deeper philosophy of law). 

“Judge David Harvey said copyright concerned everybody and urged people to become interested”.  (2)

I wonder if it occurred to this judge that people are ‘not interested’ in the law, least of all copyright violation (when it’s so easy to transgress) because the political process does not reward participants. For anyone who has gone to the trouble of writing a submission, talking to a parliamentarian, etc, you are engaging in a process which offers no validation, no constructive engagement, no assurance that anyone has even bothered to read your submission, and no opportunity to challenge the law – except if you break it. Even then, you have little reason to have confidence in your legal counsels understanding of the law. Why? Because reason is not the standard. This is because judges have dispensed with the ‘spirit of the law’, which was supposed to protect people. Now it protects Conservative or liberal interests, and that ultimately depends on who controls the judiciary ‘majority’ and when. i.e. It’s another extortion racket our legislature. 

"We have to be interested in this, because if we aren't then we'll be told what will happen by the big, vested interests”.  (3)

This is an interesting statement because it conveys a liberal-Conservative dichotomy; that corporations are able to use the law to injury you; that the judiciary has no interest in protecting you (i.e. in accordance with some objective standard of law), and that you should fantasifully participate in a process which offers scant justification for thinking you will be protected, because at the end of the day, the politicians vetting your submissions will have the discretion (with their unlimited ‘power of attorney’ you have given them by voting) to decide your fate. I am personally more worried about the arbitrary powers that the legislature has – the arbitrary power to coerce, rather than the discretionary power any corporation has to impose its will upon me; yet this judge seems to be oblivious to his role as a ‘protector of the people’. He utterly conveys no respect for the facts of reality, or objectivity.

References

1.  “Judge tells Kiwis to speak up on copyright” by Hamish Fletcher, NZ Herald, website, Jul 12, 2012.

2.  “Judge tells Kiwis to speak up on copyright” by Hamish Fletcher, NZ Herald, website, Jul 12, 2012.

3.  “Judge tells Kiwis to speak up on copyright” by Hamish Fletcher, NZ Herald, website, Jul 12, 2012.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Extortion by government and WikiLeaks

Share |

WikiLeaks is back in the new with reports that it has released a 2nd encrypted file to its supporters. It seems probable that these 'secret files' contain embarrassing information for various governments around the world. It is interesting to reflect upon the moral legitimacy of the US and WikiLeaks actions over this 'privacy' tussle. The issues as I see them:

1. The government is supposed to be a custodian of the people's moral issues

2. The government ought to act in good faith to protect citizens

WikiLeaks, as a private agency is challenging that moral authority, or more accurately, challenging the way in which they exercise their moral legitimacy; whether its a question of methodology or organisation is not clear.

The problem for me with WikiLeaks actions is that not all of their 'leaks' make an intellectual argument. i.e. Some times they seem more interested in embarrassing or discrediting government for the wrong or ambiguous reasons. At the same time, they have themselves released information which was unfair to the interests of certain members of the community. The best example I am aware of is their disclosure of banking details for people with accounts in secretive tax havens in Switzerland. They are assuming that breaking tax laws is illegitimate at a time when they are challenging the legitimacy of the governments actions. By making 'the law' the standard of value, they are undermining their own legitimacy; as the government will probably have some statutory justification for doing what they are doing. For this reason, by asserting 'statutes', they are digressing from moral principles. i.e. Undermining their own position.

The implication of this issue is that we have two powerful authorities using the threat of injury to defeat the other. My expectation is that WikiLeaks will win their debate. Western governments will be forced to acquiesce. Not the best approach, but sadly, what do you expect with a democratic system of government, in which reason is not the standard of value.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Global democracies in moral crisis

Share |

The problem with this article is that it suggests that there is no debt crisis – just a ‘growth crisis’. Is that not just another way of saving ‘debt crisis’, because we are saying that we cannot create more debt because we cannot sustain it. We are saying that we can create more debt, but debtors will lose; and in that case it will be the Chinese and Arab investors. i.e. The debasement of the USD will spiral away, and a new currency will have to be created. That brings about two things:

1. A moral crisis

2. A conflict over debt with Arab’s who control the oil

3. A conflict with the Chinese, who might be inclined to takeover Taiwan, so they don’t look stupid.

It is true that US are holding mostly tangible assets like property or businesses; but any paper assets will be debased. It will hurt some Americans.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Japanese corruption - worst in the OECD?

Share |

When one has the opportunity to live in different countries or merely takes the time to read the political news in different countries, one soon realises that its corruption is not isolated to one's country. It is essentially universal that politicians under democracy are corrupt. I would expect no less under any form of tyranny because, like democracy, they are not relationships based upon respect. The question then is:

1. Why do people tolerate it? Why are they not out in the streets?

2. Why are people not mailing this blog to their friends?

3. Why are people not looking for another way? A different philosophy?

4. Why does it feel like I am the only one?

This blog post is from a Japanese reporter who covers the Japanese political system. The Japanese parliament is arguably one of the dirtiest in the OECD. Of course third world dictators are far more brazen in their corruption.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

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

Middle East instability good for commodities

Share |

The West has long championed democracy. They want it for the West, and they want it for the Arab world. Careful what you wish for. The reality is that the Arab world is not ready for any form of moral political regime which will serve them. Anything they hatch will be a coercive system. There is the very real threat that any revolution in the Middle East will simply turn into a civil war, from which a jihad will be pursued by some populist with shallow ideals.

More importantly for the West....what about the oil? If there is any hint at all that further Arab nations are going to fall prey to revolution, then we are going to see gold and oil prices skyrocket. The US will be in the very awkward position of no longer being able to prop up a dictator, and also in the position of defeating a 'democratic shift' for these countries. Might it even resort to propping up the existing regimes?

The other possibility is that the US and Britain seek to protect their Middle East oil interests. We must remember that the US and British oil interests in the region were nationalised in the 1960s. Might they decide to belatedly seize them back, whether for their own sakes, or to act as a form of trustee for foreign and Arab interests, i.e. Savings scheme for Arabs.

These are very interesting times, and the prospects for political instability has escalated considerably... so this is a critical time to hold commodities such as gold and oil stocks. There are a number of reasons in fact:

1. Regional war in the Middle East - on many fronts as Iran is very unstable as well

2. North Korean threat - probably less of a concern

3. Financing issues for the West - there always seems to be trauma when the West has a financial crisis. Might the US monetary policy be causing 'cost-of-living' inflation problems for Egyptians?

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

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

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The philosophy of lawyers needs rewriting

Share |

Reading this article “Iraq inquiry: we have every right to know why we went to war” by Michael Mansfield, QC in the Sunday Times, it is immediately apparent how naive lawyers are, and how much they need a conceptual grasp of law – call it ‘a philosophy of law’ This is just some of the damage caused by statutory law.

Michael Mansfield wrote ‘Memoirs of a Radical Lawyer’, published by Bloomsbury in Sept 2009. His argument is that

Mansfield asks: “How it was that a sophisticated, multifaceted parliamentary democracy failed to detect, let alone prevent, such a misconceived and costly military adventure? On this, there has been a singular lack of scrutiny and accountability”.

The answer is simply that our democratic, parliamentary system is none of those things. Our democracy is a fraud; a pretence of justice and leadership. The intent of parliament is to quash and placate your conflicts for the greater good of stability, and not to reconcile or resolve your conflicting values. The war was part of that charade. It was not a mistake...it exactly served their purposes. The public’s needs were never a consideration...neither were facts. The reason for people’s naivety on these issues is that they still possess some romantic notions of democracy, just as their parents held romantic notions about imperialism. People are struggling to recognise that all such follies are forms of collectivism. The contemporary democracy is leading us towards fascism and civil discontent, which stands a good chance of leading to civil war.

Mansfield writes: “The public, servicemen and women and thousands of dead, injured and displaced Iraqi citizens have a right to know, with a full public explanation and protocols for change”.

The reality is that they don’t have rights; they have only the pretence of them. Consider their political rights. What is the value of rights if the law is arbitrary? What is the point of political rights if you have no economic rights? Is it ok that the government can give you notional political rights, but at the same time plunder your wealth? There is no dichotomy between mind and body. If you have no economic rights; a right to retain your wealth; then you have no effective political rights.

It therefore does not surprise me that:

“ ...the Government has already imposed nine protocols for non-disclosure and secrecy”.

People however do not need to know whether there is some concrete evidence to justify war...the process by which all decisions are made is flawed. This system will not achieve justice....it’s just that people don’t grasp the nature of our political system. Why seek to persecute the politicians of the day, and then leave the system to exist as it is. Why live another day under such a bad system. The problem is not any person...its an idea. Unless people start thinking like humans – using causation – and not like animals – with correlation – we are simply going to make the same mistake...and fail to reform the system.

“The Iraq inquiry has resumed this week, promising crucial witnesses — Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Lord Goldsmith and possibly Gordon Brown. We have been told repeatedly what it is not: a trial, an inquest, an inquisition, a court, a statutory inquiry”.

There is a question of accountability; but are you going to hold politicians accountable for a system of ideas which they did not invent. Reform will go nowhere if there is any element of blame because the flaw does not lie with any one person; it is systematic and deeply embedded. We were all lied to as children; and our parents were lied to. They were not liars so much as products of their worse nature. Humanity had to discover what it means to be authentic, and it has been a challenge to change the system because we are corrupted to our core by entrenched subjectivism in our core political and educational institutions.

One of the problems is that too many people are going through life without questioning their most basic premises. They are living routines which they did not consciously choose, but which was subtly accepted in their cultural context. We need to challenge our most basic ideas if we are to progress. If a counterparty repudiates our ideas, we need to be open to all possibilities, with intelligibility or rationality and raw experiences as our only standard of value. We cannot allow any assumptions because they are a legacy of that era of collective delusion and self-righteousness.

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple but without it lessons will not be learnt, let alone remembered. This inquiry must ensure with all the means at its disposal that the truth is sought and found”.

What truth? That the existence of weapons of mass destruction was a fabrication? It would not be surprising...but that is not the message...that some ministers’ are flawed...the system is flawed. Irrespective of the reasons; it was moral for Britain to invade Iraq. The problem is the system which sabotages broader decision-making. This is not a crime scene...there is the prospect of a broader revolution in thinking and action. Education, crime, justice, health...these are all pertinent issues sabotaged by our system of government...which sabotages people’s thinking.

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

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

Miami state government to cut judicial spending

Share |

It ought to concern everyone that the Miami state government is looking to cut spending on the judiciary. Read some of the flawed commentary:

"They must be joking, who is buying this line of reasoning? The lawyer that wrote and maybe a few lawyers and judges".

A reply to this was:

"Right -- we don't need no civil court system. Let's just beat each other over the head when we have disagreements -- or better yet -- shootouts! They're great for the economy. Malls really pack in the shoppers when they know there is a good chance they can take a bullet on the way to the sales racks. And don't forget what violence does to tourism. Conde Nast Traveler recently listed 'fear of shooting' as a big selling point for wealthy European tourist!

Is anyone buying into your line of reasoning? Maybe a few Tea Party desperates and Civil War reenactors. Even in the most small -government, libertarian view, a civil and criminal court system is the most necessary and basic function of government".

My response is:

I think they both miss the point. Yes, the judiciary is important, but that depends upon what it is that the judiciary is enforcing. We had a pretty good common law system, and it was thrown out with the bath water in sympathy to the desires of legislators to develop statutory law. Statutory law is not an objective (rational) standard of justice. It is based on legislature appeasement, concessions/exemptions, etc, as opposed to principles held in context of other principles. It has resulted in justice descending to arbitrary law, which we of course associate with arbitrary authoritarian rule. Democracy is thus merely a legitimatised form of tyranny.

Plans to cut spending on judiciary invoke plans to cut back upon the most important aspect of govt work. Quite the paradox don't you think?

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The connectivity of Facebook

Share |

A Facebook intern has developed this map of relationships based on the social networking software. As impressive as this visualisation is, it might be more meaningful if it was based on the actual intensity of 'relationships' between people. After all, I get all manner of people wanting to connect with me, and if you are indifferent or easily engaged, then the notion of connectedness becomes less meaningful.

See the article here and a high resolution map of the Facebook connections here.

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

Intellectual views of Julian Assange, WikiLeaks

Share |

As much as I appreciate the efforts of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in exposing global governments to greater accountability and transparency, one has to acknowledge that he is no intellectual giant. Intellectually, he is a misguided anarchist at best. The problem with him on these issues is that he advocates small, accountable government, but can offer no intellectual basis for his views. Just he accepts that's the way it should be because that is how it was in the Ancient World, which he romanticises. I agree with him on small government, but I have no confidence in his collectivist, anti-intellectual views. Anyone who favours Roosevelt as a great US president needs a serious intellectual make-over. Roosevelt was the person who gave us 'free money', i.e. Who took us off the gold standard. So much for his belief in accountability.

What do you say of a person who advocates nuclear disarmament. This is pretty silly when Iran is building weapons. The solution is clearly to retain weapons since they tend to keep the peace, and to apply conventional technologies to destroy the capacity of countries like Iran, North Korea. I am still wondering how it is that we allowed North Korea and Iran to develop such capacity. What are we waiting for? These countries enslave their own people - is there any reason to suggest they would have any greater regard for us if given the chance?

Read about the stupid sex allegations concerning Assange.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

US government arrogance "a threat to lives"

Share |

Unsurprisingly the US government has emerged as a 'threat to lives'. The reasons are very clear. The US government has shown itself to be a brash and arrogant critic of some important values:

1. Accountability

2. Personal expression

3. Citizen's interests

The notion of government protecting whistleblowers has been dealt a serious blow when a government hunts down and even threatens to assassinate you, as some officials like the Arkansas and Alaskan governors have done.

If the US government was serious about these values, it would have negotiated with WikiLeaks to ensure that the organisation acted in good faith. i.e. It only released information which the public had a right to know. I am inclined to think that WikiLeaks did release information it had no business releasing. You can't argue that this is simply public information, and everyone has a right to know. The US government has however set itself up for failure by:

1. Not keeping the public trust - the people are rightly cynical about the US government

2. Shooting the messenger - If there was really a threat to US and other lives, the US government should have sat down with WikiLeaks and negotiated principles upon which 'certain information' would be released.

The government however, by being a creature of coercion, has no respect for people's rights. That is just the rhetoric it spins, in order to keep the public confidence. I think the public are split. Personally I tend to think the public just don't think one individual is important. This is sad because it highlights a lack of empathy for others, and a greater loss of regard for freedom. People are only supportive if they have some bad experience with the government. Unfortunately, too many people just have too low expectations, and they just don't see the tragic waste resulting from government. The problem of course is they cannot conceive of another world, where decision-making is not centralised, where government holds 'common law' principles which apply in context, as opposed to arbitrary statutes which offenders side-step by 'loopholing'. And what about the waste? How many white elephant projects, botched privatisations, poorly run government services do we have to witness. People just say 'but they provide a lot of good', but the reality is that they extort 30-50% of the nation's income to provide their services inwefficiently. The return on public funding is probably in the order of 'negative 30%'. They are a drain on the private sector, much as a cancer can be considered to be. I will go so far as say crime is worse, more marriages fail, people are poorer thinkers because of government. People do not realise the extent of the impact.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Possible CIA link for Assange's alleged victims

Share |

This is an interesting development to follow. Information is being released about the two women who have accused Julian Assange of rape. There is the possibility of CIA links. Read the Miami Herald for more information.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com