G20 Conservation - Government wants to set the issue for the 'conservation'

Share |

Australia is the host and president of the G-20 Group of Nations. It is holding a conservation with intellectuals from around the world who want to participate. The website is here.

I think openness and transparency is not the issue; in fact I think its one of those red herrings created by government to make it look like you governments are 'pro-people', or pro-democracy. If government really wanted to help people, they would actually make the voters accountable, and while where doing that, the politicians as well. Unless people can do that, then there is no education, no system improvement. Its really just sanctioned repression by a 'dumbed down' population.

This problem is evident throughout the world. Currently in Thailand we are witnessing the Thaksin govt being subjected to some measure of 'accountability'. This is a govt known for its blatant corruption; recognised to be squandering taxpayer resources to placate the poor voters, who just happen to be the 'rural majority'. No wonder the so-called 'Bangkok and southern provincial elite' are supported by the military in their endeavours to depose the 'immorally-elected', though of course 'legally-sanctioned' government. It highlights the point that representative democracy is not democracy at all in any real sense. Its an extortion racket that dumbs down and disempowers people, so they renounce their minds as our god in effect tells us to do, and communists have implored us to do. Renounce the self. Not working for you? Keep renouncing! Well, Thailand was never conquered by the British, and so I recognise that, despite its mysticism, that it still appreciates the value of the individual, and thus does not renounce so readily. Whilst they are not a nation of the greatest intellectuals, they don't glorify US founding fathers, they honour a king instead. Ok, they are not perfect, but then even their king from centuries past, when the missionaries attempted to influence them, they recognised that we need only science and logic from the British. Unfortunately, we missed that lesson and devolved into a legalised extortion racket. So I wish the Thai people well; because they might just become the first 'real democracy'. I don't expect it, given their mysticism, but I have no reason to trust government. The British made that lesson to their 'subjects' centuries past. The spectre of the 'right to be taxed unwittingly' tells me nothing has changed. For something resembling the same reason in fact, if we recall the Boston Tea Party.

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

What is wrong with a meritocracy?

Share |

Notwithstanding my positive views of Ayn Rand, and the acknowledgement I make to the impact she has had on my life, there were some negatives, and she also displays her share of blunders. Among them are sweeping statements and dubious reasoning.

Someone referred me to her conception of 'meritocracy', offered at the Ayn Rand Institute:

“Meritocracy” is an old anti-concept and one of the most contemptible package deals. By means of nothing more than its last five letters, that word obliterates the difference between mind and force: it equates the men of ability with political rulers, and the power of their creative achievements with political power. There is no difference, the word suggests, between freedom and tyranny: an “aristocracy” is tyranny by a politically established elite, a “democracy” is tyranny by the majority—and when a government protects individual rights, the result is tyranny by talent or “merit” (and since “to merit” means “to deserve,” a free society is ruled by the tyranny of justice).

Philosophy: Who Needs It, pp.105; sourced from The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

The problem I have with this definition is that its too sweeping in its implications. There is a lot of truth in it. A majority of people having authority over the balance is even more threatening than an autocracy because it holds a sanction of being morally legitimate by virtue of embodying the majority. Who could reasonably hold that the majority is a proxy for the truth. I would take the opposite position, that the minority is more likely to comprise discerning thinkers.

Rand assumes that there is a need in a meritocracy to unconditionally sanction the views of some 'meritocrats'. I don't see this as necessarily entailed, and its occurrence will ultimately depend on the underlying theory of values. This of course Rand understood, since her theory of values was her greatest insight. So if meritocrats do not enjoy the unconditional sanction of others, we have a situation where people need to be convinced. This conditionality is a basis for a new respect or empathy for others; and when you have that, the conditions are reciprocated.

The smallest minority is of course the individual. That does not mean to say that any one person should dictate the affairs of others. It means that every individual should have the sovereign right to represent their own interests or assign or withdrawal a proxy at any time, and on any issue.

Rand assumes here that 'merit' is a standard of value merely by assuming it. This of course raises the question of who embodies rational values. The answer is: The person who can withstand critical review. The problem with the world is not that we cannot find the truth; the problem is that people can too easily shirk accountability. The consequence is a great many 'schools of thought', with no inclination among those schools to reconcile their ideas, nor any provision for them to differentiate them from the 'functional society' such that they can prove the practicality of their philosophy or values. The problem for a great many of these 'schools of thought', and the individualist philosophies like Rand's are the exception, is that they depend upon the sanctioning of victims, i.e. They need to extort advantages from people. i.e. Collectivists have to plunder the wealth of the rich in order to sustain themselves. Of course any school needs raw land at the least, and access to resources.

Clearly making your own society makes little sense. It would be a tremendous diseconomy for people to go off and do their own thing. And yet a great many people do exactly that. Western societies are increasingly confronting low workforce participation rates. Some of these people are wealthy and think they don't need to work. Some however are so pissed off by governments and the rest of our 'unthinking society', that they decide to go off into the wilderness and grow dope or raise vegetables. They embrace the 'simple life'. Some of them just immigrate to a simpler place like NZ, others shack up with some girl in Thailand or the Philippines and life off investment income. There are many Westerners doing this. I stumble upon them all the time. Society does not talk about these people. Most of them are men, but then women can always find respite by depending on women. That is not so easy for men to justify, or women to accept.

I know a lawyer who did that. He was running a successful business, and he got into drugs, and gave the business to his son. He went off to live in an isolated area of Australia. He came back decades later saying sorry to his children, and regretting his decision. The reality however is that he came back with no greater mental clarity. He was engaging in escapism, as these 'schools of thought' are prone to do. I understood his disdain for his society, but unlike him, I retained a respect for facts, and I sought intellectual coherence and correspondence of facts. It has taken me a long time, but it was not time wasted. It was a source of pride 'in discovery' as well as efficacy, knowing that I could out-debate all takers. The next stage of course is to educate and achieve some practical effect. This is not easy. How do you convince people who are convinced that there is no answer, and that humanity is this way by nature. They don't need to talk to me. They have discounted humanity, so their conception of the 'reasonable', whilst more tragic than mine, serves them...as long as humanity continues to disappoint them.

This leaves little respect for objectivity. Some even proclaim to embody it, but they don't have a causative or intellectual framework for thinking...just a rough correlation between their values and their experience. They don't need causation; they each have their support group of vested interests. This support group is pitted against counterparts of course in our democratic society, and each remains entrenched in conflict, attempting to extort some concession through alliances; not underpin by reasons, but 'numbers'. This does not work intellectually of course, but extortion does achieve 'practical' concrete goals.. Little surprise that people start to find NOT thinking very practical. Whether they are pragmatic, or even evasive/repressed: two things happen:

1. People lose respect for facts - they become sceptical

2. People lose respect for people - they become morally relativists - they start to think humanity is screwed up by nature, they start to dismiss the significance or importance of any one individual, and they start to think that the only way to change the world is by forcing policy down people's throats. So we get police officers saying 'if you don't want a fine, then stop breaking the law'. "You will learn one day!". This is nonsense. The law does not teach anything but obedience, and unless we are prepared to move towards fascism, then this is not the way to go. The reality is that its the police and politicians who don't need to think because either party is accountable. The police protect each other. If they are caught for something, they are simply dismissed, but more commonly given the opportunity to resign.

Its the same for politicians. If the electorate cannot 'tolerate' some indiscretion, they will be given the opportunity to resign, and will probably avoid investigation, so they can keep their lifetime pension. Standards are already pretty low. Politicians right around the globe have been engaged in corruption scandals, from the US, UK, Australia, NZ, Japan, India, the Philippines. What makes it possible is - the governments unconditional right to your money (i.e. taxation). This is why you should simply stop paying tax. Withdrawal your sanction for poor administration and declare this a 'failed state'. All democracies are failed states.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Tyranny in Cuba highlights despotism in the West

Share |

From Cuba, the Miami Herald has the story of a uneducated, unskilled mother who is leading the anti-government protesters seeking the overthrow of the Cuban government. In Cuba, the tyranny of government is far more apparent than in the West. We are raised with this misconception in Western countries that we are free. The reality is that we have certain political rights which mean nothing if the government is able to perniciously able to tax you, to be unaccountable for how it spends your taxes, and if it has the unconditional power to do so.

They would argue that you have the right to choose your leaders in triennial elections. This is nonsense. It is not a 'real' choice when there are two entrenched parties, and in any respect, you cannot package support for candidates, and you cannot argue that democracy is legitimate. Even if more than 50% of the people supported the government on any particular issue, that would not necessary make the government right. In fact, given the populist, uncritical thinking of the public, I would think it has more likelihood of being wrong.

Public policy issues are complex. They require the diligent, critical thinking of well-educated people; the greatest minds of the people; not political middlemen sanctioned by often uneducated, passive, disinterested minds only interested in concrete, expedient values; i.e. What is in it for them. Such a system is destined to alienate the mindless and persecute the wealthy. No one benefits from such a system - not the middle class, and not even the politicians themselves for the following reasons:

1. Democracy sabotages the economic potential of the economy, by centralising power and imposing arbitrary, statutory laws which only preserve the pretence of control. Such laws are destined to create loopholes, which require a crippling litany of patch-ups, each more desperate and expedient than the last. The NZ parliament now laments that policy is so complex.

2. It sabotages the minds of all people, whether it cripples the wealthy or intellectual with anxiety, or repression

3. It underpins any prospect of politicians having self-respect. Having been close to aspiring politicians, they display no respect for voters. Their ideas are coercive, so they are incapable of practical solutions.

Your political masters have no self-respect. They are not the best among you; they are the among the more delusioned. They know not what they are doing. They have no moral sanction; only your complicity and your obedience to count upon. They are morally deprave and they know it; the tax office knows it; the police knows it. They are corrupt to varying degrees, and they live on hope. Why live on hope when there is certainty in logic and integrity. We need a meritocracy based on reason.

Free thinkers of the Western world - why do you settle for so little. The use of prescription medicines rise unabated. More people are diagnosed with depression and anxiety each year, more with psychosis. Even the healthiest among you are repressed, compartmentalised and mnidlessly obedient. That is not justice; its tyranny. Reclaim your right to your own life; a life free of the tyranny of your government and your neighbour. Your political rights mean nothing without economic rights. Taxation is not for preserving infrastructure and civil society; it is about preserving political power, which becomes increasingly difficult, as your minds degrade under deprave values. The foundation of your society is a mix of markets and socialism. The socialism within you is destroying you, and it is capitalism which will get the blame. Apparently you were too greedy to preserve the virtue of socialism. It was not capitalism; not if by capitalism you mean a system based on reason and volution. Only socialists would advance a system based on coercion and compliance. A capitalist does not need a revolution if he is free. The revolutionists have always been the collectivists, whether socialists, fascists, environmentalists, animal liberationists, etc.

I hope you can find the courage and conviction of this 68yo uneducated, unskilled mother in Cuba, who is leading a protest. What's your excuse? Not persecuted enough? Life too breezy. Have all the material concessions you could possibly want? Are you happy to have the power to buy another product you don't need? For this mother; I don't think it was about the money; even though she has less than us Westerners. The propaganda in the West is no less than that in Cuba. The West is in a tyranny, but people have been seduced by materialism. When they sold their values for materialism, they renounced their minds. The socialist solution is that you have not done enough; now renounce your materialism. My answer is - Stop Renouncing! You have a right to live. You birth right is that you have no encumbrances. You were not born into slavery; you just have to proclaim your freedom....yes, freedom in the Western world. You no longer need be British 'subjects'. The law is not above you; the law ought to be for you. The law ought to be your protection. It was once under Common Law, but common law has been displaced by statutory law because you sanctioned the politicians who enslave you. Withdraw your sanction for their representatives and their system. March in deviance against a pernicious system which will ultimately lead us to a worse form of tyranny. When all the world's collectivist countries adopt democracy, there will be no standard of comparison. There will be the historical record, your ideas, but what value will they be in a world of moral scepticism. Your scepticism is symptom of your acceptance of ambivalence....your concession that your mind is powerless to solve the problem. So support those minds which preserve their integrity. You will not find them in a despotic political system. Stand up for a meritocracy based on reasons - not 'numbers', where representation is a proxy thrust upon you. Your democracy is merely a legitimatised tyranny.

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

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

Shareholders unfairly penalised by governments

Share |

According to the SMH, Qantas and a 11 other airlines are being fined in Europe after a succession of fines elsewhere, for engaging in cartel-like trade practices in respect of their freight divisions. These activities have resulted in Qantas paying fines of $12mil to the European Commission, $61mil in the USA and $20mil to the ACCC in Australia. This is a lot of money for a corporation to pay for the illegitimate acts of corporate executives. The question is - why are shareholders paying? Shareholders are passive interests. Whilst they might indirectly profit from these activities, so does the government from imposing fines. It is like a hidden form of taxation, no better than speeding cameras. They are regulations which are not intended to modify behaviour but rather to raise revenue for vested interests. Is any reform intended to prevent such 'taxation' of passive shareholders? Probably not. After all, the ACCC and USA levied their fines in 2007. Why have we not seen any efforts by these companies to take legal action against the over-paid executives responsible for these gross breaches of corporate regulation. Why have we not seen an end to option-incentives which merely encourage people to commit crimes. The idea that options give incentives for people to work harder is really a nonsense because people want to take pride in their work. They see a sense of efficacy, and want to be rewarded for it. Money need not however be part of the incentives...promotion is far better. Financial incentives is an illegitimate grab for cash; just as the government's take is similarly illegitimate.

This type of conduct is not capitalism...its cronyism or fascism. Such conduct is enabled by representative democracy...which far from achieving freedom or a fairer society provides a mechanism for legitimatising the expropriation of wealth from passive interests such as savers, investors, taxpayers and other 'alienated citizens'. There are so many examples:

1. Savers: Banks charging excessive and punitive bank fees on citizens in Australia and other countries

2. Taxpayers: Government ministers voting for their own salaries, and engaging in all manner of travel expense routs. Corruption in the tendering of contracts is an example in some countries. The funding of election campaigns in some countries. The dichotomy between political, corporate and public accountability in most countries. Politicians seem to get away with murder. Literary in the Philippines, where political assassinations 'under democracy' are commonplace.

3. Investors: The poor regulation of stock exchanges and the punitive fines imposed on shareholders for ethical and fiduciary breaches by executives or directors.

4. Minority interests: The tendency of governments to unfairly place greater burdens on minority interests because they have no effective voice, e.g. The greater taxation of the rich, foreigners, tourists, etc.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australian police make 'huge' drug seizure

Share |

Lately I have been highlighting the feeble nature of our public service. These people are utterly useless and you are paying a great deal of money for their 'services'. They are paid not to perform any valued service, but to be 'perceived' as doing so. i.e. Any value they offer is incidental to the perception left in your minds...that they do some good, therefore government....in all its majesty...is worthwhile. The reality...its not. You are getting about 30c in the dollar, and if you consider the opportunity costs, then you are faring far worse. You are throwing good money in after bad. Here is evidence based merely on three articles I have fished out over the last week - with two in this mornings news...One does not need to stray far. I have written before about politician's perks, media incompetence, but here are a few more:

1. Public servant jobs

2. Academic research or see this for academic standards on climate change

3. Climate change journalism

4. Regulators - are they accountable?

Let me add to these examples with another example.

The media loves drug busts. So do the police and the government. It gives you hope right! It gives you the hope that one day the police are finally going to develop a secret technology which will detect all drug traffickers. Or maybe a drug 'appetite' suppressant? You might even be hoping it comes from one of our public 'prestigious' universities. Think again. You would be under the false delusion that governments want to solve these issues. Really they don't. Do you think your stockbroker wants you to have direct access to the market? After all, why can't the ASX develop trading software to directly sell shares to you? Because it needs a middleman to 'siphon the funds from you'. i.e. To tell you a cocking bull story to buy the stock.

Anyway, back to the real story. The media loves big 'drug busts' because you are curious, so you buy the newspapers. The police love these stories because they feel they are actually making a difference, and because it boosts their collectivist pride. Yes, I agree, its paradoxical that I use the world 'collectivist' in relation to fascism and the police....but then I'm met students from the Australian Police Academy, and I can tell you some of the people coming out of that place are 'freaking' scary as cops. There is the same 'sub-culture' in the military of course. It must be the organisational values don't you think...so you'd have to wonder who gets promoted. Which makes you wonder....is the police organisation clean, or are perceptions being managed better than they were in the 1980s. Police all around the world are corrupt. You might wonder why. They are all part of the same organisation. Do you expect any accountability?

Back to the story. We have a huge $210 million drug bust! This is big news. The problem is ...this is just part of the trade. This is not going to make a 'big' difference because its a big shipment, but a small part of the trade. It will not be missed in the market. The reason is because they are infrequent. The market does not depend on these trades.

More concerning is that these big seizures give you hope in government and the police. The reality is that the problem goes far more fundamental than this seizure, the performance of the police, or government, but the structure of our government. This whole edifice is about justifying your hope in government. Don't. They are a false hope. Don't look at these one off seizures, look at the streets of your cities...at the alcoholism, the poverty, the indifference, the values of the people. These issues are effects....the cause alludes government who are fighting symptoms. They are not dealing with the cause. They cannot deal with the cause because their conduct, their organisational structure is part of the problem. You are part of the problem - generally speaking. If you don't have mental clarity over these issues you are part of the problem because you are supporting a regime that does not serve you...but you think in some practical way it does because it leaves you materially wealthier. You focus on the fact that you have an expensive home and a growing bank account... you repress the memory or the significance of a government which 'seizes' its share, your neighbour who cheats on his wife, your bosses advances, your son's lack of respect for you....but you imagine everything to be ok, because on some concrete level, things are better than yesterday because I have more things. Sounds like a drug addiction to me. Yes, perceptions can be hallucinogenic can't they....and they are free courtesy of your newspapers, friends, teachers, parents, etc. There are not many places where you can hear the truth. Most people just want to believe...this is the basis of their hope. Its called positive thinking....and the more desperate they become for hope...the more they chant their mantra of positive thinking. This is the era of cognitive repression....and your government has a play in it.

Read this story about this police seizure and tell me that its going to make a difference to the drug trade. It ignores all the smaller trades which are just too small. This big shipper was tipped off because the organisers belonged to a large organisation. Most are family businesses with cargoes floating behind vessels with GPS-tracking devices. They will never get those shipments. If discovered they will be left floating in the Pacific Ocean.

The only way to end the drug trade is to restore people's respect for facts. Its far more fundamental than the government's thinking. And they will never reflect on the fundamental cause because if we did, they would have to oversee a very different form of government, which would of course steal their 'illegitimate' thunder.

I am reminded of public servants who acknowledge that they don't have the resources to fight crime. This has been the case with the financial regulator ASIC, the police, I hear it all the time. These people end up leaving the police in frustration. They go into these organisations seemingly with such noble ideals...but they never challenge their ideal.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Wannabe parasites.....apply here

Share |

This is a rather interesting advertisement. I guess if I hated myself sufficiently one could be compelled to seek such a job for its generous superannuation, modest salary, but plenty of security, in the knowledge that you will never work in the private sector again. Read and understand how they describe the position:

"As a key Government agency, the Department of Treasury and Finance delivers high quality economic and financial management advice and services to our customers through five different business units, with staff located in workplaces across Perth and the metropolitan area".

The problem with this of course is that governments don't have customers....they have victims. A customer is a person who 'voluntarily' enters into an agreement with you. It is a conditional relationship based on the mutual exchange of values. No value, no service.

The Western government does not exactly function on the basis which was intended by the constitution, however it is because of the failings of the constitution that government is able to act as it does....so observe that it:

1. Acts unconditionally, extorting money from taxpayers

2. Offers no recourse when they fail to do their job

3. Any compensation is paid by the taxpayer...not the politicians who caused the problem

Many people of course accept this nonsense that we had a choice. If you voted, you have a choice. "If you didn't vote, how can you complain. You have your chance". The choice is to not sanction a bad system. A vile system that causes untold injury to people's lives. Injury beyond that which they would care to recognise. People are sabotaging their minds so that they do not have to know the pain caused by governments.

The guy who wrote this advertisement for a government bureaucratic role on some level knows that the government doesn't have customers, that the 'customers' are actually required by government to deal with them. Its all nonsense...and people know it....they just choose not to identify it constantly. Why worry about something you cannot fix?

Well, I can tell you, it is not going to be fixed until someone worries about it. What does it take? A protest? A High Court challenge? All in good time.

These people are parasites pretending to provide some 'public service'. It is not public service, it is public extortion. Is there any value in the services offered by government. Of course there is...some value. By your payout is probably only 20c in the dollar you pay because they do untold worse. i.e. The welfare state that gets larger, the legal system which expands in its convoluted stupidity, all because of statutory law. Common law offers far better protection...but not the 'protection' or extortion your MPs want to provide.

I once worked in the government. I was a post office mail sorter for a year whilst at university. It was a great job because I was given 5 hours to perform a job that I could do in 3 hours. These places seem to attract all the minorities, whether its Asian immigrants who have double degrees and still can't get a job, or homosexuals who have experienced some prejudice in the community. The agencies are a waste of people. These people had potential before they went into the public service....destroyed by it. Politicians are normal 'well-intentioned' people. I've been dealing with some lately, but they will be destroyed by the system. People who are defined by the system. Mind you...the system is defined by our system...so someone has to rise to the moment...to change the values upon which this system is based.

I contemplated a job with government later in my career. I was considering changing the system from within. I downloaded an application form....but when I read that the fire escape rules/guidelines were a condition of the employment contract.... I think I almost regurgitated by lunch. These people were so caught up in procedures...it was clear that they had lost sight of objectives. Who has the presence of mind, the 'thoroughness' to place fire evacuation guidelines in the job description. Lunacy...so I dropped that strategy pretty quickly. That is the same type of nonsense that governments today speak. For example, the tax office when it says it is going to respect its 'taxpaying' customers. When government departments talk about having 'profit centres'. Governments do not make profits.....they have residual funds...and they are seldom much because they feel compelled to spend lest their budget be reduced each year. They are not custodians of your interests, they are middlemen extorting some value on the pretense that you will get some value in return. There is sometimes a value....sometimes its a loss. Maybe after inefficiencies and inconpetencies you get 70c in the dollar for roadwork these days, compared to 40c in the dollar when it was all government depts. Public electricity supply might offer 90c in the dollar, with a little bit of loss for redundant labour and poorly negotiated coal supply contracts. You might lose 30c in the dollar with privatisation, 10% going to investment bankers, 10% going to foreign investors, 10% going to the govt in future taxes. For things like education and the justice system, I suspect you are only getting 20-30c in the dollar for 'rot learning' and inefficient processes. For the legislature, I think you are looking at a huge loss. Huge! The legislature is incredibly centralised so it thwarts effective decision-making, they create loopholes because they develop 'statutory dogma' divorced from any context, which will demand later modifications. Compare that to Common Law. Its track record is exemplary. It has been marginalised by statutory law.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com