Showing posts with label Statism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statism. Show all posts

Monday, June 24, 2013

Nice parable about the insidious nature of welfare statism

Share |
There was a chemistry professor in a large University that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back.

He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked: "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said that it was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the bush and putting wheat on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free wheat. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.  When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the wheat again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side.  The pigs, which are used to the free wheat, start to come through the gate to eat that free wheat again.  You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free wheat. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the bush for themselves, so they accept their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in Australia . The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free wheat out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, unmarried mothers support, carers income support, payments to illegal immigrants, welfare, medicine, drugs, etc, while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

One should always remember two truths:  There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

If you see that all of this wonderful government "help" is a problem confronting the future of democracy in Australia , you might want to send this on to your friends.

If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, then you will probably delete this email.

BUT, God help us all when the gate slams shut!

Source: Unknown. This was emailed to me and a search for the author demonstrated that its widely distributed. Please aid authors by providing citations to your material. I know that it take a certain level of skill to understand, but it takes something else to be original, so I'd prefer to cite if possible.

My concern with this parable is that its not clear enough for some people. Here was a response by someone to this email.
"Good email. I think that the pure weight of numbers is going to make us become more socialistic (China ,India, Indonesia..3-4 billion).I think it will be in more diluted form of socialism...One that can get things done more quickly......a government that has a plan.....like Northern Australia ..not so much bureaucracy!"
There is good and bad in this reply. It is true that the extortion-based imposition of representative democracy is bad for society. That is why socialists love representative democracy, calling themselves 'social democrats' or 'democratic socialists'. If you were thinking these people were 'softer socialists' or 'diluted' friendly versions, then you simply don't appreciate the tyranny involved. When a group of people, whether democrats or gang bangers resort to the use of force, or even the threat of force, then its extortion, and it does not have to be violent. This is the basis of our political system. If they are 'dilute' or 'soft', its because they don't have the confidence to more brazenly impose their will. Rest assured there will come a day when people like me are not going to speak out in fear. We will instead be more concerned about protecting our life rather than simply our wealth, friendships or career, as we are inevitably going to isolate ourselves for retaining convictions. I actually don't think emerging markets are a threat to the West as much as the West is a threat to itself. Asia is very prosperous and they are far less tragic in some respects than the West. They have a far  more tragic legacy; but they are quickly shaking that legacy off, and embracing the opportunities presented. The issue is whether exposure to Western culture is going to exposure them to better thinking, and sadly the answer is sadly 'No'.
The good news is that many people are bypassing education and learning on their own initiative, simply because they know their state education is bad, and Western education is unaffordable. This deinstitutionalisation of education is a good thing because it means people are being motivated by their interests, goals, and curiosity. It means they are more likely to be exposed to different views; particularly if they are debating people on social media. In the state universities however, they will be told what the facts are according to the state.
This feedback comes from a 'conservative' voter. He superficially values the 'expediency' of government. Yes, governments can impressively marshal resources and make decisions, but look at the results. In the first instance, they have stolen the money, and given that they have acted with haste in order to create the superficial impression that they are responsive to the taxpayers needs, and to show they are 'people of action', they inevitably drive through poor policy that, not simply wastes the money, but causes more problems than were originally there. There are too many examples. I think you could probably look at 90% of government policies or executive decisions and conclude it would have been better if nothing were done, whether its:
1. Taking Australian aboriginal children from their homes and fostering them out to white families. There was no research into the impact; it was a 'practical decision', that seemed so 'self-evidently' right in the midst of an intellectual vacuum.
2. Subsidies for solar panels in Australia that resulted in shoddy installations, price escalation trumping the subsidy. This was the case with heat pumps as well. A heat pump ($3000) is a glorified 'reverse' refrigerator ($1000), so offering a subsidy is just exporting money whilst the subsidy is claimed by installers who perform shoddy service with poorly trained staff because they struck a gold mine with government systematic extortion.

In this case the respondent is impressed with efforts by the Australian government to boost development in North Australia. Why? Clearly because they like the 'self-evident' look of progress. What is missing is the understanding of the context. The context is that resources are going into 'Northern Australia' at the expense of more productive investment elsewhere. Of course, 'you cannot have your cake and eat it too', and more can you compare the impacts of the two 'spending alternatives', and nor would you even notice the difference. One is inclined to see these issues in isolation unless you conceptually appreciate that:
1. There are a limited amount of financial resources
2. The fact that a development proceeds, i.e. plants and infrastructure is built, that the fares for the train ride are cheap; this simply does not make it a 'good investment'. Those projects have to sustain themselves by offering a return to build other projects, otherwise we simply suffer a sustained recession for years until the long-suffering taxpayer's financial resources rebuild.

Now, in the case of Northern Australia, the various governments have committed to building railways, fibre optic connections, new port infrastructure, even though there is an oversupply of resources worldwide. The paradox is that there are small resource companies starved on capital and being taken over by multi-nationals for the 'sin' of being marginalised by government tax concessions on superannuation and small investors who think for themselves. The UK government belatedly recognises its folly, but rather than fixing the problem, it decides to offer small investors tax concessions. This is how the world works under statism. It does not even require state intervention; it just requires state statutes which manipulate conduct, which ultimately result in the 'dumbing down' of people, the suspension of thinking, and ultimately the outsourcing of what it means to be human.
So I say there is nothing more dangerous than a 'government with a plan' because it was in all likelihood conceived in an attempt to appeal to the unthinking mob, the government will carry no responsibility since they are not a counterparty, and they legally bear no responsibility anyway, unless there is a vote in placing more burden upon you as a taxpayer. You sure as hell don't feel responsible, as you might not have known; you might not have even been around in the 1950s when aboriginal children were 'stolen' (i.e. The Stolen Generation).
The least offensive aspect of government is the unproductive bureaucrats you can count, its the mess that you don't, and its your mental suspension that you don't even perceive because you can't comprehend what it means to be a conceptual critical thinker, unless you were one. This knowledge is not something that you need to read in a book; you can create yourself, just as the guy living on welfare can create himself. All he needs is the compulsion of being responsible for his own life. Humans need to see responsibility as being the engine of initiative, and a government's actions as 'theft' for stealing that initiative. Perhaps its about time that a welfare recipient sued government ministers for 'stealing their initiative', their value proposition which underpins their humanity, their capacity and desire to think. Given them back that responsibility, and you give them the pride of place. Not your place, and not relative to you, but the pride in being the best person they can be in the context of their circumstances, and the pride of not depending on others to sustain that life. Not relying on others in the first instance, or any sense of guilt they might begrudgingly offer, but respectfully renouncing any sense of entitlement or claim to the lives of others. I think people might be surprised by the generosity of people who have 'earnt their disposition', whether it is good or bad. Whether people's response is fair or tragic, ultimately its fairness is a question of values. Life-affirming or life-negating, there are simply too many people who don't understand human nature, you would have us living off some government and neglecting to see what those 'underwriters' of government depend upon for their survival. Neglecting to see the sanction that governments depend upon to extort the wealth they attain by force.

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

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Australia govt requires drivers licence for lawn mowers

Share |
Australian drivers of lawn mowers will be required to obtain a driver's license and dog walkers will be required to obtain a walking permit under new regulations by the Australian Labor government. These progressive measures are considered enlightened social policy in the era of permanent recession. i.e. Well as permanent as any policy can be until the next loophole or fiscal or monetary stimulus.
Corporations are already talking about renaming the 'dogs' tigers, and more progressive companies are looking at genetic mutations of the dog with no teeth. Lawn mower makers are expected to follow suit, with pedal-powered mowers. The justification for the policy was the death of a youth after an old man drove over his grandson.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, January 17, 2011

What I think of NZ tax system

Share |
Read here what I think about the NZ tax system. The NZ government is currently revising its tax policy. Feel free to render your parliamentary submissions here.

There is a blatant contradiction in the legislation. There are numerous flaws which need to be addressed:
1. "Voluntary compliance" is a contradiction in terms. The tax system is not voluntary. It is enforced at the point of a gun. In fact since people do not volunteer, but rather the government accepts and facilitates the means by which govt officers extort wealth from NZ taxpayers, this makes members of parliament extortionists, as well as any officer who facilitates the process.
So how does a legislator achieve this rationalisation? Do they imagine that 'voluntary compliance' is like 'self discipline'? Do they imagine that people actually choose taxation, and would not appreciate some discretion? Do they imagine that the will of the majority justifies extortion? Be it real or a facade arising from the lack of real impact or 'participation' that any one voter has. It is the ultimate sham that results in not merely the plundering of taxpayer wealth, but also the psychological injury to all voters in the form of psychological repression.
2. Voluntary participation - The notion that morality is social is a contradiction in terms. There is no collective consciousness, which is ultimately the point of issue when it comes to psychological repression. It is natural for a consciousness to want to evade tax, and yet you subjugate people to this arbitrary statutory legal system which makes a 'necessity' or 'virtue' out of extortion, knowing full well that it entails the initiation of force, and that it is a breach of the far more logical common law.

Our politicians are destroying the minds of individuals, their capacity to think critically, their respect for objectivity, undermining any prospect of objective justice. Perhasp the most concerning aspect is the compartmentalising of people's minds....sadly a consequence affirmed by the market's specialisation of labour.

Democracy was never freedom - it was a transition from divine tyranny of priests and monarchs to the tyranny of the majority, which was only ever a pretense for those who would presume to represent them. How exactly does a representative embody the contradictions of 60,000 odd voters? Would such a member countenance rationality in a system where 'numbers' and financial support for one's future candidacy are the standards of value. Where is the sincere desire to represent and educate people of the facts. I've never seen any respect for objectivity among politicians. Why does the electorate have as much represent for electorated officials as they have for 2nd hand car salespeople and loan sharks. Because they are middlemen.

I can't even say that you are acting in your interests, as politicians. On some basic level, you are deriving a lifetime pension, a sense of power and attention. The problem is, you are engaged in a very boring, farcical process, governing a lot of idiots (thanks to your notion of governance), and as a result showing your own ineptitude, safety and lack of efficacy. Why would anyone want to appeal to the worst in people, i.e. Their cynical indifference to their participation, and their fear of non-compliance. This is your reality as politicians. Their is no self- respect in this form of governance. Rulers are of course the most insecure people because compliance is unconditional.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

At least murder counts for something - Part 2

Share |
The problem with this article is that it fails to identify the cause of the problem. This is ultimately why society just packs up and moves on....because it has no answer. It instead finds problems it can solve. This is ultimately why society is repressed and distracted by materialism. Both 'solutions' are intended to distract you from the real problems besetting society. In part 1 of this post I raised the spectre of a society which is inclined to dwell on problems, then move on like they never occurred. So let's get to the real problem - the journalists response:
For the sake of this discussion, let’s stipulate that Loughner was a “lone nutjob” who had never listened to Glenn Beck or been a card-carrying member of either the Tea or Communist parties. Let’s also face another tragedy: The only two civic reforms that might have actually stopped him — tighter gun control and an effective mental health safety net — won’t materialize even now".
He erects straw men, and then he asserts his own solution. This is another form of 'materialism'; the idea that the cause of the murder was always a very practical and concrete solution. i.e. If people would only be more careful. If only there were fewer guns. If only someone had seen his deteriorating psychological state of mind. The problem is more fundamental and systematic. Nothing other than a change in the nature of governance will overt more problems of this nature.
This will not stop journalists and bystanders clutching 'concrete' straw answers to problems.
Why was Loughner a 'nut job'? What is a nut-job anyway? Certainly not a psychological concept....but then it was always a throw-away assertion anyway. There is a great deal of interest in his reading list. Are we surprised that Americans actually read books? Are we going to regulate content now? We already do unsuccessfully. i.e. No porn.
So we have journalists rendering psychological diagnosis based on no knowledge whatsoever. His first 'reaction' is renouncement, just like Hitler. Let's renounce rights. The individual is a danger to himself. For the collective good, we need to regulate people. No doubt this journalist has a long-bend frustration with gun shootings. Why do we need guns anyway? Well, none if government was not the greatest threat posed to mankind. Government destroys many lives in one foul swoop, and that includes 'kind governments' as well.
But the author does compel us to not be petty hypocrites. He offers a litany of examples like the following:
On “Meet the Press” last Sunday [Representative Trent Franks, Republican of Arizona] implored us to “treat each other as fellow children of God” without acknowledging (or being questioned about) his 2009 diatribe branding Obama as “an enemy of humanity.”
That ship has of course sailed, but the issue is why? Why are we searching for such concrete solutions to problems. The answer is that it was never a mental process that stretched beyond the concrete. The reason there is no abstract solutions; the reason we are concrete bound; is because our system of government does not allow us to be anything but because if you think, you are condemning yourself to a life of impracticality. You don't convince people that you are right by giving them abstract answers; you convince them you are right by flaunting your money in front of them, or by giving some of it to them. The other way of course is to simply coerce them; but first you need to do the former in order to get elected. That is the paradigm that needs to be challenged. The way we think is a product of the way we are governed. When thinking becomes practical, you will be surprised just how minds can shine; and how quickly problems disappear.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Nuclear weapons and war

Share |
According to the Japan Times, Japan has made its 17th submission to the UN General Assembly calling for a complete nuclear disarmament. Surprisingly the United States is among the 50 nations which agreed to the submission. Really the submission is stupid for the folllowing reasons:
1. A nuclear disarmament agreement can only embolden those countries who have the most to gain from the adoption of nuclear weapons. Its a red flag saying that we will allow you to have an advantage.
2. Nuclear weapons are not the problem, it is the motives of the country developing them which is the problem.
3. Nuclear disarmament as a moral crusade is compatible with dogmatic religion (i.e. mysticism), and places morality outside the real of logic. Little surprise the initiative was taken by Japan, and little surprise that the USA has endorsed it.
4. Nuclear weapons discouraged war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The 'Cold War' resulted in one of the longest periods of global peace in history.
5. Nuclear weapons are an important component of any military force. We need to remember that nuclear weapons are not solely for armed aggressive, but can have peaceful applications. Some of these applications might actually save human lives. Such applications of course need to be researched, however there might be applications for deviating the orbit of a comet so that it does not strike earth. There might be opportunities to modify geological processes to attain some resource development advantage. The mind boggles at the opportunities.
6. Collectivist countries are the ones which seek to initiate the use of any force in order to gain some advantage. The threat is not nuclear weapons any more than the threat is knives and guns. The problem is the collectivist politicians who drive political debate. Countries like Iran, Korea, Japan, Russia have more 'collectivist' leaders, however the moral ambivalence in the West shows that it is a significant factor in our political system. Democracy is a collectivist construction, imposing the will of the majority on the minorities. The arbitrary statutory legal system, which has displaced a relative rational 'common law' system is testimony to that...and the 'collectivist creep' of statutory law is driving the West to universal tyranny.
Let me suggest to you how this tyranny is going to manifest in war in future. We are witnessing an increasing use of immigration in Western countries to stimulate economic development. If you cannot use debt, governments like to rely on immigration. Political correctness rather than logic demands that you allow everyone into your country, irrespective of their values. Collectivism is no barrier. In fact, we have already argued its well-entrenched in the West. The problem is that, immigration adds a cultural element. By allowing fundamentalist mystical creeds into the secular western countries, we are likely to see an escalation in racial/rligious prejudice. This is going to inspire reactionary nationalism, such that collectivists identities will be polarised. Sub-cultural persecution will ignite national tensions as foreign governments around the world are compelled for the sake of political correctness to draw attention to the tyranny in the host 'Western' nations. Politically ambitious collectivists in Western countries will then use these issues as a basis for expanding their political support and for sponsoring more prejudicial arguments. This will be compatible with our arbitrary statutory laws, so opponents will be standing on weak moral foundations. Before you know it, you have wars. Politically correct governments defending their prejudices or racially-based prejudices.
This ought not be new to us. We can already witness in European nations the growing hostility to foreigners, and Muslims in particularly. We have already witnessed a racially-divisive war in the old Yugoslavian states, as well as the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. This is a fertile legacy to be used by 'majorities' to insight racial prejudices. Its going to happen eventually. All it takes will be a breach at the 'weakest link'. There is good reason for thinking the problem will ignite in Europe. It is among the most collectivist regions in the world. Perhaps the poorer areas of Germany or France are the most likely hot spots of resentment. All we need is a deterioration in economic circumstances, and governments resorting to immigration in order to stimulate economic activity. Understand that this economic activity is only needed because these governments maintain such a strangehold over their economy. Government control = bottlenecks on a nation's productive capacity. Justice facilitates commerce and job creation; but most government intervention has nothing to do with justice, and distorts economic activity, causing the boom-bust cycles we are accustomed to. These practices create vulnerabilities in the economy, and the prospect of war in collectivist countries. These wars have the tendency to draw even the most individualistic nations into the fray. The consequence is that even the freest nation's are sabotaged. Look at what the 'freedom loving' USA adopted after WWII. It was Roosevelt's 'New Deal', i.e. Measures to stimulate domestic demand after it was ravaged by a global war and acute destruction in Europe. Expect it again.
A little bit of conceptual foresight can avoid this trend. Just don't expect it.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Farmers also under attack by government agencies

Share |
The erosion of political freedoms under government. This ought to bother people, but I doubt anyone will see the implication. The problem is the way laws are 'negotiated' into law, and how governments impose those laws. Increasingly it is resulting in a very 'punitive' political system which makes the Nazis look 'right neighbourly'. This is just one case. This is not new. We saw a few weeks ago how the Australian Tax Office prevented Paul Hogan from leaving the country. It did not have to arrest him. It just immobilised him 'in a sense'. See my previous blogs about that case, but farmers might want to read this story from NZ. The same thing could happen in Australia to you, and it no doubt already is. Geez, its happening to you if you received an unreasonable speeding fine. Unreasonable might mean speeding in fine weather, whether by 10km, or maybe higher. But a less contentious example would be the fine I got for doing 120kmph in a 110kmph area on a 20 degree hill. I thought I was being a good environmentalist by preserving my momentum. But that context is not fully appreciated by the 'arbitrary law'.
Anyway, read about the punitive action taken against this dairy farmer in NZ.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, July 26, 2010

Gillard offering green bribes

Share |
Who could argue with green tax credits for business? Certainly business in general will love it. The mining industry will hate it because they don't get subsidies, they get taxes instead. The people will love it because they get to feel warm knowing there is a global warming crisis unfolding. Even if there is no global warming - its better to be safe than vulnerable. Right?
Actually wrong. The problem with politicians is that they appeal to the lowest, most vile qualities in man. Your lack of intellect. I can't blame fear because it is human nature to respond to fear. But it is how people deal with fear that concerns me, and it ought to concern you. There are several ways people deal with fear:
1. Evade responsibility - like shifting costs (taxes on miners) to others (subsidies on energy users). Complicated government only makes it easier for people to evade responsibility, because they argue 'Oh but I paid my taxes'...'sure but there is a net deficit between your payments and your benefits'. This is why big governments are a curse, and a lack of principle will ultimately lead small governments back to big. So we need a 'principled solution'.
2. Evade facts of reality - like business saying there is no real problem with no counter-argument, and then just thinking that they can use their political power to disarm government. It does not work. Higher taxes on miners is the consequence. Educate the unthinking or perish, and the issue is not solely taxes, global warming, democracy...it goes even deeper.

Let us consider the latest policy initiative by the Australian Labor Party. They are offering $1 billion in subsidies for energy saving initiatives for certain industries like hotels and commercial buildings. The problem with this is that business is already in the 'business of saving money', so if it was already justified, then it ought to have been spent. If it wasn't justified, or even compelling, then the expense ought to be deferred until better technology or process systems justify it.

Another problem is the tendency for government to shift the country away from broad market principles. It does this by enacting specific or 'targeted' industry policy which benefits some at the expense of others. This in itself causes a mis-allocation of resources. We also see the a plethora of funds going into a certain industry just drives money offshore, as local service providers don't have the immediate capacity to service these industries, and prices go up because demand artificially exceeds supply. The implication is that you get shoddy installations (as with the Home Insulation Scheme by Peter Garrett). Labor does not learn, and it doesn't because voters are indifferent to where their money goes....just as you would expect of any common slave with no control over their lives. P.S. Labor represents more slavery. Liberals represent 'steady-as-you-go' slavery.
So the next effect of this policy will be premature expense on energy-savings, a rush of money overseas (i.e. a higher deficit than there otherwise would be), but it will help convince a lot of liberals who don't think that they have a responsive party who cares. Oh, it will also result in thousands of more rules, another hundred specific exemptions, more legislation, more complexity. Because they are arbitrary policies no one will understand the implications, so there will need to be adjustments, more exemptions.
Gillard will however be able to lower population growth because there will be a brain drain of smart Australians overseas. She will offset this will higher immigration numbers. The paradox being that Asians escaping collectivism in their own country will find that they face more punitive laws here. They will however appreciate the nice beaches, cuddly kangaroos. Their kids in a generation however might wonder why they ever left. There are already a great many Australians living in 'undeveloped' Asia, and you might think its the pretty girls, but its really something more....its the relatively freedom from intrusive and arbitrary government. You no longer know where you stand when government arbitrarily imposes taxes and subsidies. Ask shareholders in miners whether they were warned about a tax on their investments. How does one plan for that? If you think this is good for your country....you don't read enough.

The positive aspect is that Gillard is not bringing forward the Emissions Trading Scheme. The whole concept will be dropped in 2013, when it is realised that it was never humanity, it was always solar flares driving the variation in the globe's climate.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Friday, July 23, 2010

Share |
When I think about what is most important in the world, I find that personal efficacy is the most compelling value. We tend to think that the rich have the easiest time of it. The reality however is that the poor and destitute have the greatest prospects of being successful than the rich. The reason is that a poor person has no where to go but up. If you are starving, you are going to invest all your effort into personal advancement. People do not develop because they don't know how, they don't develop because people assume the responsibility that they should have borne.
Some people develop despite their comfortable lives. Many millionaires develop not because of necessity but because of good habits. This person may have been a success with our without limbs. People will look at this handicapped mother and think she is special because she is raising a child despite being handicapped, but such is the 'mother of invention'. If you have a sense of personal efficacy. We can have that modelled for us, but if we are poor, we are unlikely to have developed that skill, so we need some destitution in order to develop it.
The reason the poor are poor and will stay poor, is not because people didn't care enough to help them; not because no one gave them a chance, but because people did. People survive because of others, but they excel without them. The only thing you give others is validation. When you give them charity you deny them opportunity and in the process you peddle a false sense of value which can only hinder their development.
Think about that when you vote on the expansion of the welfare state in this coming election, and the call for more taxes. Saving grace or tyranny.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Why are Western politics less extreme?

Share |
In my previous article I was reflecting on the differences between Western and Russian politics. Russian politics seem so much more extreme than ours. i.e. Mikhail Khodorkovsky posed a threat to President Putin, so he was sent to gaol for 6 years. It is improbable that he will ever be released as long as Putin is in power.
You can't do that in Australia....well you don't need to. Consider Pauline Hanson. After 3 months in gaol people did not identify her as a victim. She made a mistake, but the opposition parties had achieved their objective. They had sabotaged her credibility prior to an election. That would not work in Russia because no one has credibility. Corruption is expected. Maybe you expect the same of Australian politicians. More than likely you thought prison was a little extreme for her.

In the West we tend to rely on financial or punitive threats to attain compliance. But in poor countries this does not work because people have so little money. They need to threaten lives in order to achieve political outcomes. This is extreme I grant you. The alternative is to arrest people on trumped up charges and detain them in prison for a decade until a time when people no longer care. Are you about to protest in the streets for a single person? I doubt it.

I guess this is another element - the ideological weight of people's values in the West tends to be more motivated by financial considerations than political issues. Note that one of the endearing legacies of organised labour is their greater 'passion' for politics. They really get out and campaign, just like the churches. The liberals however are more interested in making money, and using it to make a difference. Money works if people are motivated more by money than ideas.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Comparing Russian and Australian politics

Share |
Do you look at Russian politics and think you are glad you don't have to contend with fascism like in 'that country'. Well maybe you do. Here is a story by CNN about Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former CEO of Yukos, the oil company he purchased in an oil privatisation. This story is basically that he is in prison because he under-stated or evaded taxes. He is close to being released, so a number of other charges are being made against him by President Putin. Now the reason why Putin is alleged to have placed him in prison is because he was an prospective political opponent of him. He was considering running against Putin in the election, and was otherwise financing opposition parties to Putin. The implication is that you have no rights is you challenge power in Russia.
Now lets look at government in Australia. Some years ago this awkward, naive Queensland woman was receiving a great deal of political support in Australia because she did not fit the usual political mold in Australia. She spoke honestly, and argued for some issues which a segment of Australians were concerned about. I don't support her views, but she received a lot of support from those who agreed with her 'white Australia' agenda. This women was of course Pauline Hanson. Prior to the coming election, this women was rolled by interests associated with Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party. We do not hear any defence of Pauline by the Labor Party, so you might conclude that they had some sympathy with the Liberal Party on this issue. Maybe you were thinking that Labor just didn't like her politics. But there is more to this. This was an intent to preserve the duopoly in Australian politics - between Liberal and Labor.
Consider the example of the Liberals going after Kevin Rudd in the case of 'Ute-gate', where he was supposed to be the benefactor of election contributions which were not registered. The Liberals really went after Rudd. That's ok for Labor, because it might discredit Rudd, but not the Labor Party. The party is a brand, or independent identity, so it tends to preserve its amoral agency. i.e. We do not blame the brand for failing, we blame the CEO. But what if that organisation or political structure is flawed in its construction because of a lack of competition, perhaps because it preserves certain financial benefits for politicians. i.e. Life time pension as an MP. Does that not support my argument that Hanson was rolled in the same way that Mikhail Khodorkovsky was rolled in Russia? Of course Russian politics are so much more 'extreme' than Australian politics.
Tony Abbott orchestrated the arrest of Pauline Hanson for election contributions. She served 3 months in prison if I remember correctly, before a judge overruled the decision. Perhaps the judge ruled that it was a trivial complaint compared to what other parliamentarians do in the grand scheme of things, with their abuse of MP allowances. Consider though that Abbott had done what he wanted to do. He had discredited a political aspirant. To be sure she was not going to be an important force, but she threatened to divide the Liberal Party vote, and in the process she was going to cost the Liberal Party the election. She was rolled because she was a threat. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was rolled because he was a threat.
So do you think the answer to fascism under Kevin Rudd is to vote for a Liberal Party member? I don't think so. I think you're best prospects for freedom in Australia is to vote for Libertarians, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Is that enough? No, not for sure. The Libertarians are not an intellectual group, so they are not going to overturn the intellectual issues which are undermining the country. They will however be a reprieve from statism.
Interested in why Russian politics are more extreme that Australian politics? See my next post.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Is fascism on the increase in Australia

Share |
In early May 2010 IMF Australia was being swamped by bank customers dismayed by the bank fees charged by the largest Australian banks. Despite transactions costs of less than $1, the banks were often charging between $15 t0 $65 in Australia.
IMF established FinancialRedress.com.au to enlist bank customers in a nationwide class action. The company had 20,000 supporters for its actions before the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) ruled that it would (favour the banks) by not giving IMF access to disclosure information from the bank.
The move highlights the cozy relationship between the government and the banks. The first responsibility of the government ought to be to protect the legal rights of its citizens, and yet here was a case of a government agency acting as an obstacle to the people reclaiming an estimated $5 billion in bank fees which clearly many Australian bank customers consider excessive.
The other important responsibility is to define objective principles for rights. Unfortunately the West has not really given full recognition to those political rights sanctioned by the United Nations under the Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other declarations. Many countries argue that these rights do not reconcile with their own political systems, or that they have already protected these rights. The reality however is that only limited protection is offered. Another problem is the failure to protect economic rights. Political rights which do not extend to economic rights are superfluous because in a highly organised society no one can afford to lose all of their economic wealth. The gross violation of economic rights is imposed under the rhetoric of economic rights. The problem is that governments have conjured up economic rights (with the help of vocal socialists and liberals) which constitute impositions upon the rights of others. This is logically a contradiction in terms. i.e. Your right to free health care is an imposition upon doctors to provide that care, and an opern-ended commitment by others to finance it. Rights have ceased to be 'protections', and are not imposed as 'obligations'. The manifest outcome of such a system is that economic values are no longer earned, they are assumed as entitlements. We have long recognised the failure of socialism, but we refuse to acknowledge the slow drift to values within Western society towards fascism, as we saw in Germany in the 1940s. We are once again failing to learn from history. Germany was particularly vulnerable because of its philosophical legacy of Kant, Hegel, etc. Today, you might be surprised how reverred these philosophers are among Western academics.

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

Friday, May 14, 2010

Share |
Today we gained the clearest evidence that the Western world is in a state of fascism. Never mind what you might think of Russia with its killings of political dissidents, or control of the media. We have today seen once again evidence that the Australian government has no interest in justice. What we can expect are efforts to sabotage the realisation of political rights, efforts to defend the actions of bank executives, as well as current practices. Why? The rhetoric could be anything from 'legal precedent', 'fine details in the law' or 'destabilisation of the banking system'. What it will in fact be is simply government efforts to intervene to protect banking executives who protect it. Whether its a 'conspiracy' or simply two parties preserving some loyalty or independently seeing the value of the relationship matters little. The consequences are clear - the government does not represent the interests of justice - it represents particular vested interests which:
1. Preserve the power base of the two major parties - 'the duopolistic solution'
2. Preserves the administration of the current political party

The details of the transaction are evident at SMH Online. Basically ASIC is preventing IMF Australia, which is mounting a class action against the banks, from getting access to disclosure statements. This is despite IMF representing bank customers. This people highlights the conflict of interest between the banks and the government. The government is obstructing the course of justice. It will be interesting to see how the Liberal Party will handle this issue. It will certainly test the question of whether there is a 'co-sonspiracy' between the two major political parties. i.e. Rules of engagement between the parties likely involve efforts to preserve those systems and policies which help those two parties remain in power. i.e. This political duopoly is entrenched.

It has been 6 years at least for myself waiting for these political parties to act. I have been waiting for them to legislate against the banks. I could ill-afford to waste money taking legal action against CBA/Comsec, and now there emerges a 'financial solution' in the form of IMF Australia (i.e. FinancialRedress.com.au), and the ASIC obstructs it. Clearly the reason ASIC is doing this is because if IMF is successful, it will be incredibly embarrassing for the government, because it did not act to address the problem. It will highlight the bleating inadequacies of our political system. i.e. That banks can rip off millions of customers 'small-time' and get away with it. Finally after taking 6 years of crap from them, a 'white knight' emerges in the form of IMF Australia, and the government 'harpoons' them, preventing them from acting through the courts to get justice for most Australians. The government is embarrassed. Any resolution it makes will be a half-measure to protect its interests. I think the reality is that government knows the costs of this action are greater than has been disclosed. You see the banks are not simply liable for damages over bank fees, but also broker fees. e.g. Comsec owes me $20,000 in over-charged fees for its stupid broking platform. Its later actions caused me a further $10,000 in losses because they issued certificates and closed my account without adequate warning. The reality is that this 'political solution' is a cover-up.
Australians have no rights....you never did...you simply are living an illusion. Justice is unaffordable, offers no protection, and you live in hope that you can hobble through life without being affected.
It will be interesting to see if IMF takes action in the High Court to demand the release of this information. These are of course delay tactics. Labor would like to see the issue addressed by Liberals so it reflects on them. But really its a 'conspiracy'. I have long recognised that any action by myself to seek solutions by government, or through ASIC, always amounted to zero. Why? Lack of resources was the standard answer. Here is a case where there are private resources, and the government is preventing it. Why? It ought to be clear.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Monday, May 10, 2010

Ethical implications for our CEOs

Share |
I have long argued that wealthy business people are partly the problem. They are partly the reason why we have declining freedom. The reality is that there is some measure of 'material' practicality in their philosophy, but they really don't want to identify the nature of the statist which controls their economic well-being. Whether they are 'intellectually-challenged', compartmentalised thinkers or repressed, or simply goal-orientated in a different direction, the implications are the same as for the parent who chooses to focus upon the growth of the business, as opposed to the proper development of their children. Years later they will disparage the child for their decisions, with no regard to the values they have modelled, or the choices they have made. Just as they are dumb-founded by the final reality of their child which has become a delinquent, so they are dumb-founded by the decline of their country into fascism. They did not see it happen because of their selective focus, and failure to analyse ideas.
So when I had the opportunity to challenge the ideas of our society with a CEO. At first I found him surprisingly agreeable. Well I should not be surprised, as my politics were consistent with his economic interests. Consider his politics:
"What we are seeing with Rudd and co is indeed fascism. They believe they know what is best for us all and that they can have a command economy. This is much worse than the Whitlam years which were bad enough. I don't see how anyone with half a brain could be anything but sceptical about climate matters. We are dealing with really evil people in Federal government just now".
The problem is that he does not grasp the ethical implications of his ideas. Clearly he is opposed to governments imposing their values on him, regardless of what they are. My counter-argument was multi-faceted because I wanted to give him the utmost possibility to integrate a lot of ideas across a range of subjects. e.g. The ethics of his friend/partner, his own values. I think I overwhelmed him and made him feel threatened. For a person with a great deal of pride in his acc0mplishments, influencing people is really a hard task. So I failed in this regard. My reply was very long, so I will only address his response to it:
"I disagree that “capitalism is selfishness”. The quality applies to the individuals, not to “isms”. There are selfish capitalists, selfish socialists, selfish people of religion, etc, just as there are unselfish people with the same political or philosophical bents".
The problem here is a lack of understanding of human motivations. He is not identifying the underlying motivations behind human thought and action. He in effect lacks 'humanities' science, which might be a good thing if he studied the topic at a university because he might have ended up a conflicted humanitarian. This is a flawed conception of selfishness and selflessness in the general community, including business leaders. We are raised with the belief that it is moral to serve others. Its the ethics underpinning socialism and fascism (Hitler: You are nothing, your nation is everything). It is not simply a moral imperative, it is a value alternative. People choose to be altruistic; it is not simply a case of having it thrust upon them by statists. He makes no distinction, so he does not see the underlying science.
He also makes no distinction between competing priorities. i.e. Masalow recognises that people have a hierarchy of values, and that they will prefer one to another. i.e. The love and satisfaction of one's wife to one's pet dog, to the extent that there is a conflict between them. Rather than regarding love as a trade - value for value - he sees love as altruistic. He does not recognise that altruistic love would mean loving her for her flaws (not in spite of them). Why then does he wonder why he did not fall in love with the most worthless girl who threw herself at him. Because he made a value judgement based on her virtues. Mind you, I don't wish to imply that all people make healthy value judgements. But these are psychologically healthy people with good values.
The other aspect of his reply was that 'selfishness' relates to psychology, not to philosophical values. In this regard, he does not identify the integrity of politics and ethics. Pity! I even provided him with a clue, i.e. Trade is based upon the exchange of value for value, which is inherently selfish or self-serving. You don't screw people out of self-interest, you screw people because you are self-loathing, which is the providence of altruists who create nothing, and thus have nothing to trade by flaws or vice. Their tools are guilt, coercion, manipulation like the promise of unconditional love. In fact most people are some blend of these attributes.

My conversation to this gentleman did not have the desired response. Pity I am too busy or overwhelmed to craft a better letter. Too busy to invest in anyone person. I do respect him. The reality however is that people are simply overwhelmed by the implications of these ideas. CEOs are hard nuts to crack because they are not accustomed to feeling vulnerable. We are raised to be strong, even to the point of denying reality. He really doesn't want to deal with these issues. Better to know on the first letter than invest a great deal of time in a relationship which was destined to fail. Keep..keep trying. :)
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
Share |
Society today is a mixed economy, just as it has been for the last few centuries. Over time it has lingered between differing levels of state coercion by arbitrary force and free and unfettered private action. The need for regulation has been used for justifying both legitimate (i.e. courts) and illegitimate (i.e. welfare) state intervention. The problem of course is that 'unconditional' servitude establishes no moral standards of conduct or any economic standards for performance. It did not matter that democracy provided representative government, it only mattered that governments 'tried' to achieve it. It did not matter if welfare resolved the poverty problem, it only mattered that governments tried to resolve them. People thought this was morally decent, and decency trumps practical considerations like the right to choose how to utilise one's property, or the right to withdrawal your support from programs which do not satisfy your standards. When taxation becomes involuntary expropriation, public service becomes slavery. The 'conditional statement' (or performance incentive) needs to be returned to public administration. This was actually the basis upon which the feudal lords paid the monarchy. i.e. The landed class or nobles paid the monarchy taxes in order to protect them from invading armies. Today, there is no performance criteria. Now we have 'unconditional' slavery.
We have never had capitalism. Its not that its not practical. It did not exist centuries ago because of the poverty. The only education they needed then was about rights. i.e. They only needed to know that each individuals life was a value, and yet people still don't recognise that today. They are instead burdened with unearned guilt as children, unexplained moral imperatives, unreasonable school rules, unreasonable taxation burdens, misdirected hatred by employers/employees, or other vested interests. No one questioned the ethical principles underpinning their moral code.
Today we have public education, however it is hardly an education if it only teaches us to be well-trained slaves, and effectively entrenches slavery. If you wonder why you have greater political rights or freedom (i.e. The right to freedom of movement), it is because you have less economic freedom. The fact that economic prosperity has delivered you greater wealth, has not so much unshackled you, but bonded you to the state. Business groups will not support economic freedom today, just as the wealthy liberal or worker will not freedom, because they have too many 'economic interests' to lose, and no effective voice in parliament. Of course a great many people delude themselves into thinking they have a voice or a vote. The reality is that they have nothing that is substantive.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Why are we drifting towards fascism

Share |
This argument might be disputed by some, but let me present some compelling indicators:
1. The role of the state in the national economy
2. The expansion of statutory law - which displaces common law
3. The decline of intellectual thought
The first and third issues are indeed hard to demonstrate. In fact I actually think the education system today is better in ways than it was when I was young, and I think the quality of parenting is also much improved. I also think that the internet has made a great difference to people's education. Information is so much more readily available.

It is issue number 2 which stands out as particularly a problem. Government is the peak moral authority in any country. It basically sets the standards by which those subordinated by those laws behave. If the laws are vague, arbitrary, inconsistency, unworkable, poorly or inefficiently enforced, then that is a problem for the whole of society. This is the current state of affairs. So what has changed?
Well yes justice continues to be inefficient and expensive, but it is also intruding into new areas of our lives. This would not be a bad thing if it was rational law. i.e. Common law is the closest we have come to a rational framework, but it has been displaced by arbitrary statutory law. Why do I say its arbitrary? It is because it is negotiated in back offices, not logically integrated into a set of principles, which would be an ideological platform. The problem is the main political parties have such 'principles', its just that they will readily abandon them with any change in the political wind.
There is a dire need for political reform. The great problem as I see is that 'big business' who are in the best position to do something about this, are more interested in short range decision-making. They lack all respect for politics and really negotiate 'economic outcomes' divorced from political values. They are basically morally bankrupt. This is a problem because the concessions they will make will save them some grace tomorrow. But they will have conceded a 'significant principle' to the government. e.g. The right to know where they stand. A right to property. A right to freedom from coercion. These political rights have been surrendered; they need to be reclaimed. Government is run by incompetents. Australia should not be giving them more money. Look how they wasted it during the financial crisis. Consider who caused the financial crisis. It was not the banks actually; it was facilitated by US government policy through the Federal Reserve.
This week there was a gathering of well-organised public citizens. They are liberals concerned about such issues as global warming, peace on earth, animal rights, welfare issues, nuclear disarmament. The problem is that as business people 'make money', they surrender the realm of ideas to liberal idiots like this group - the UN Association of NZ. The UN used traditionally was supposed to defend rights. Basically the organisation is now run by liberals who are destroying it. Their agenda is no longer political rights. Today people in the Congo are being raped, pillaged and killed by armed guerrillas whilst the UN force remains on the sidelines and under-resourced. Instead the UN is more interested in sabotaging the intellectual framework upon which rights are based. Why? Because they never had an intellectual framework. Being an advocate of peace does not advance a value system. This is the nature of their moral bankruptcy. They want peace in Afghanistan (and elsewhere), but their feelings will not achieve it. They do not have the self esteem to mark a political argument, but they sway people with appeals to guilt and misplaced empathy through public conferences, seminars and protests like this one in NZ. They are built on a ground-swell of support by idiots who have no idea.
Peace is not a value. A prison is peaceful, though you wouldn't want to live in one. You can have peace in a free country because each person respects each others rights, or you can have peace because there is an autocrat forcing compliance. This is the direction in which politics has been moving since the 1700s. It leads us into economic crises or war, which forces a generation of capitulation, then it happens again. In those periods of 'soul searching' nothing is learnt because the introspection does not reach a level where the 'disease' of collectivism is repudiated. i.e. We all remember in 1993 - the Cold War was won. Today we are fighting a new 'Cold War' - a new expression of collectivism. It manifests as various forms of liberalism such as animal rights, global warming and welfarism. Its flawed philosophical premises remain unchallenged because business sees no practical interest in theorising values unless they make money. They think they are going to win people over by getting rich. It won't happen, even if you give them half the money you 'earn', they will win the 'moral sanction' to take anything which is not theirs for some 'common good'. Their welfare entitlement will undermine any good your efforts can achieve. It will undermine science, which is why you get such dubious research suggesting global warming and animal rights. Yes, primates have feelings, yes they are self-aware, but its not a basis for rights.
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

ConvinceMe.Net - Anyone up for a debate?