Chile - a degrading liberal state?

Share |

All the signs suggest that Chile is destined to degrade into a liberal state. The cards were always on the table when you consider the anti-intellectual foundations for the nation. The modern 'successful' state was born out of intellectual repression. As it turns out repression can be good, when the ideas being repressed as are socialism. General Pinochet is criticised broadly for suppressing and killing political activists. Those who lost loved ones are however fond of forgetting that the activists were extortionist socialists intent on turning Chile into a socialist paradise. They might soon have their way. So we will explore the question of - cost or 'opportunity cost'.
There are of course those who will argue that life is an intrinsic value; but actually everything we understand about life tells us that it is objective and conditional upon humans recognising the requirements or life-affirming values to sustain and prosper. So how is Chile destined to fail?

Pinochet should be a national hero because he denied individuals rights to those who spurned their value. How can the socialists of the 1960s, like those of today:
1. Be critical of human right violations when they were no less intent upon curtailing said rights. The difference is only one's choice of victims. Pinochet curtailed the victimisation only to the socialists who threatened the rights of others, rather than the socialists who threatened to takeover the country and renounce everyone's rights.
2. Avoid the correlation between personal freedom and prosperity. Since Pinochet's transformation, the nation has achieved outstanding growth. It is true that a lot of the prosperity has resulted from the mining boom. That said, the nation will struggle to sustain the levels of spending being considered by the new socialist government.

The regime of Pinochet is not without its problems. The greatest threat is posed by low standards of education. The truth is that no nation around the world conveys a healthy framework of human values. Chile is no exception in this regard. It however can be considered to be very vulnerable because:
1. Spanish cultures were never famous for their personal or intellectual discipline
2. Spanish cultures always gave primacy to lifestyle considerations
3. Spanish cultures have always been firmly collectivist, spurring the rights of individuals for the sake of social harmony.

Does this suggest that we are destined to see another oppressive political step by the military. Well, that is possible. This government is relatively popular. The implication is that:
1. Chile could see a return to oppressive militarist rule - but this time round the military may be more corrupt than under Pinochet
2. The socialist coalition of 7 parties might well break down, so it loses credibility, and is unable to implement much of its program

In the favour of the socialist government is the health of the Chilean economy as well as the underlying disparity of wealth. Commodity prices have likely seen the bottom, so we can expect export revenues to have reached their low. Chile will however be going against the international trend of austerity. Partially this will serve to debase a currency that is destined to be a 'hard currency' at a time of robust mineral prices and devaluing international currencies (i.e. EUR, JPY & USD). The problem lies in the potential impact of state education. In some respects the reforms could be construed as positive, however given that it could greatly enlargen the state bureaucracy, there needs to be considerable scepticism about the direction of said policy. Nothing can be taken at face value. It matters less than education is state or privately run; it matters more that the values conveyed are healthy. So what exactly is the nature of this program?

Currently, education in Chile relies upon household funding. The implication is that the poor are precluded from entering 'skilled' work which pays higher. The implication is that Chile is trying to elevate its standing as a 'skilled nation'. That is admirable. The problem is that there is only so much demand for skilled labour. You therefore have to wonder whether Chile's skills development will be as beneficial as in other countries, which already have skilled trainers. This is a threat. The opportunity presented for Chile is that they might well be able to position their nation to be the 'skills capital' of the Latino world. That is a strategic opportunity. There is really no centre of commerce in the Latin world. The Australian Stock Exchange, the Johannesburg and Toronto/Vancouver Stock Exchanges are centres of finance serving their respective markets. There is every reason to believe Santiago could displace Toronto, Sydney, NY and London as the Latino centre of capital, particularly given its growing importance to mining and its shared Latino language.

The negative aspect is the expectation that any wealth created can be pilfered by the state 'in the interests of the common good'. In fairness to Chile, the government is only talking about raising its tax rate from 20% to 25%. This might be construed as recognising its improved sovereign rating - barr immense changes like this. The government is also talking about dropping tax concessions on capital works. Large scale mines tend to undergo expansion. Tax deductions on further capital expansion therefore favours further 'expansion' to defer mining profits, and therefore taxes, until later years. In Chile, the mines are immense. So the miners are able to defer taxes. Deductibles are bad policy as they greatly complicate and distort a 'user pays' system, but so does relying on income taxes. The question is for how long will miners be able to defer tax through deductibles. It is fair to say it will not make much difference because they will merely restructure their spending accordingly. In that case, we can expect 'corporate loopholing' to leave the budget under-funded, demanding more tax increases. The nation should move towards a consumption tax with user pay charges on identifiable and privatised services. Education, if it must be state-funded, should be on the basis of a voucher system, so that people's education dollar is discretionary. If families don't use their education coupon, then perhaps it should carry over towards their social security. The funds should go into a resource fund to protect future savings from inflation. Of course must depends on the nature of education policy; however a state solution is generally a bad idea. Is there any reason to think it will be worse than any other nation? No, but relativism is hardly a solution to what might be construed to merely a 'funding problem' for education. This is a justification for a coupon system - not a Western style state system which has decimated student's capacity to learn. One could be forgiven for hoping for a crisis of confidence from rising inflation to precipitate the suspension of the Bachelet-government's program.

Her other reform initiative is constitutional reform to adopt an electoral system. The problem with representative democracy is that it causes bitter in-fighting over an issue which is really superfluous. Representative democracy is extortion. Policy development should be about 'good rational ideas', not extorting influence as a 'numbers game' or strategic manipulative game-play, that electoral politics ultimately descends into, with lobbyists buying votes. This is not a paradigm that has served any Western nation in the last 80 years. It will never achieve its stated goals - because its is institutionalised corruption, on a poorly conceived idea. Its not stable government; its repressive, disenfranchising, alienating tyranny. The fact that it constraints political leaders almost as much as its citizens is not a saving grace. It is a capitulation that is destined to end in tyranny by forcing the renunciation of the human mind. Having said that, her proposal for reducing the entrenched power of the mainstream parties could be construed as a positive. If they adopted a system like NZ or the Philippines MMP list seats, or even Australia's proportional electoral preferencing system, then minor parties would have greater voice. It would still however be a 'extortion-based' system, where parties are rewarded for extortion. In fact, we might argue that it affirms the wrong value. It says that any competitive system is fair, even though the system rewards or affirms extortive imposition of force.

Of course, the Bachelet-government can be praised for its initiative to liberalise abortion and gay rights. She is not exactly a new face in politics, having led a coalition government from 2006-2010. In that time, she was undoubtedly challenged by her thin majority and the global financial crisis, even if commodity prices were relatively high in this period. On reflection, it does not seem that the Bachelet-government poses such an immense threat given that she will have to rely on the Right for some concessions, and her 7-party coalition might end up being a substantial vulnerability regardless.

It is difficult to compare Chile to Nixon's New Deal. There might be 'centre-left' protesters clamming for change. But at this point there is no crisis demanding such policy. This might however occur by necessity. If Westerner governments are going to continue to poor USDs on the global market, then 'relatively' hard currencies like Chile will be forced to debase their own currencies to remain competitive in international markets. We can expect therefore some profligate spending. The positive news might well be the plan to direct this spending towards 'value-added' education. The question is whether the nation's leader is able to pull off that feat. Its plausible that Chile will be a Mecca of learning for the region. The question is - how well will they do. This demands some understanding of the current value of Chilean education. Perhaps the outlook is positive given its 'discretionary' funding model to date. That question demands investigation.

For more information on the Chilean economy, read BBC News.

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

A chaos of public administration in NZ

Share |

This article by the NZ Herald highlights in NZ how the government is bringing about the failure of state administration. Apart from the prospects of civil unrest, as we have seen in the Middle East, the public system is broke and needs to be dropped.

Of course this type of chaos is occurring in all of the democracies around the world; and understandably so. The US was the base currency which propelled them all to the same ultimate end....an inability to pay their bills.

The question is - will people blame capitalism; or will they recognise the primary role of government in precipitating this state of affairs. It is hard to blame government when you need a hand-out, and no one thinks to blame anyone when the economy 'looks good'. Well, not everyone. We have been blaming govt since we started blogging in 2005.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

"Taxation Without Representation" in question

Share |

The principle of "Taxation Without Representation" has been a popular notion in US political history. The problem with this concept is that it is a misconception. Firstly the idea that we have, or could possibility have representation without engaging in some personal contractual relationship with the government, and without having the right to suspend that support is nonsense. Therefore, I do not willingly allow my wealth to be expropriated by those who would set up a fallacious system of representation.

The objection is that we cannot all realistically have personal representation. This is not entirely true for several reasons:

1. People only need 'personal' representation when any assembly of agents or representatives fail to perform their role. This is unlikely if there is a large pool of competitors.

2. Pools of representation can be based upon issues rather than party 'pools of issues'

3. The basis or standard of value need not be votes, but a meritocratic 'superior argument', which is after all the same basis which our courts are expected to function. The difference is that courts are not entirely effective because of the structure they function under. The implication is that we need political reform to ensure reason is the standard of value.

Without real and effective representation, you get no taxation!

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

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

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Julian Assange morally inept and thus dangerous

Share |

One of the reasons why I am against Julian Assange is that he is morally inept. That is not to say that I do not appreciate his campaign to achieve greater accountability from government; indeed everyone ought to be accountable, including himself. The problem though is that in his latest release of information, he is targeting taxpayers. His disclosure is flawed for two reasons:

1. The old problem of private records

2. The problem of 'no act of immorality'

He thinks that its hypocritical that people are hiding money in Swiss bank accounts. That is true insofar as politicians or business people who have benefited financially from coercion, i.e. Corruption, fraud, etc. But what of investors who do not support government taxation? What if you are a person, such as myself, who regards taxation as immoral, and that it ought never have been legal to steal from thy keeper. They are not hypocrites, they just have a different value system. If under the threat of a gun you do not tell the truth, that does not make you a hypocrite, it makes you practical. Ought these people fight against government and taxation? Well, I do. But that is their call. The problem is that these people are not so sure how to deal with the problem since most business and wealthy people are as morally bankrupt as Julian Assange.

If there are any people who are going to be hunted down as a result of Julian Assange; I offer you an olive branch. A moral defense of your rights to keep your wealth. It might not guarantee your protection, but it will offer greater protection that what you have now. I would happily assist in any class action against government if its a High Court action which will challenge the constitution of any Western government.

The implication is that Julian Assange has betrayed something greater than accountability....and that is freedom from tyranny. He is acting in the same moral shortsightedness as the guy who fights for Adolf Hitler because Hitler wrote the law. This is a strange 'hypocritical' approach from Assange because he is breaking laws with his misuse of information, as well as his efforts to escape legal sanction. He might claim to be acting legally (in certain jurisdictions). The reality is that he is avoiding court action - that is the opportunity to be accountable. I understand why. He might be persecuted in the United States....and yet he is prepared to expose tax evaders to the same standard - that is political persecution.

Perhaps he thinks taxation is moral and therefore that it is reasonable that these people be exposed for not being 'good slaves' who comply with taxation law. He ought therefore to reflect on why he needs to 'keep government accountable' and why they are able to so readily escape it. It is because government has too much power. The reason they have too much power is because they have a free hand with coercion. Reason is not the standard...extortion is. They have a legal sanction to coerce anyone into anything...subject to a very weak form of accountability in the form of electoral referendums every few years. The lack of positive participation is enough to make every voter passive, and the lack of real choice in representation is another part of the problem. This is the moral sanction that he wants to expose others to, whilst he hides from such sanctions himself. This is of course moral relativism...so why does he not grant these tax offenders their moral relativism if he sanctions it. Julian...you are a hypocrite mate! Don't stop what you are doing.....but please acquire some standards of moral integrity.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Gerry Harvey quickly going from worse to despicable

Share |

According to the SMH, Gerry Harvey is ambivalent about whether he ought to comment on the GST tax issue. The problem is he is weigh out of his depth. He needs to stop talking, start listening and thinking. When he realises that he has handled his internet strategy poorly, he ought to apologise to shareholders for costing them wealth. He might argue he did his best, but then for a few character reasons arising from this tax issue, its apparent he is not displaying the critical thinking skills required of a CEO. It is a reflection on our education system. Maybe money just came too easy in a government-sponsored boom. Oh well, I guess that will make the recession all the more painful for some.

A word of wisdom Mr Harvey....taxation is personal. There are a lot of people frustrated with democracy because their lives don't matter to those in power. Each of us are important; most of all to ourselves. Why should be live for the sake of others. Why should we underwrite the values of others. When you effectively sanction a system of government based on coercion, you place yourself in the firing line. In the public eye, you cannot afford to be morally ambivalent. The fact that you have 'easy access' to the government because you have more money just makes you a man of little principle because you make use of that access, not in defense of any principle, but because you want to make more money.

Here is your problem - you advocated 'fairness' in the tax system. Sorry, but that does not compete. There is no question of fairness when you are talking about slavery. We are all slaves to a government through the tax system which gives us token political rights, and yet denies us economic rights, for which political rights mean nothing. Why would a government want to persecute me politically, when they can seize assets and freeze bank accounts. Even wealthy people like Paul Hogan have experienced it. He had restraining order issued against him so he could not leave the country. He is standing up for himself, but all you wealthy idiots fail to see that other taxpayers are victims too. He sues the government who are funded by taxpayers. You want to cut your tax. Where do you think the government will get the difference.

What you call that is 'moral cowardice' or moral indifference. You are indifferent about whether the government increases taxes or reduces them. Its a silly position. The position you should be taking is:

1. Government should cut spending

2. Government should adopt user pays

3. Government should privatise/out-source all executive functions

That is the moral way to conduct yourself. No coercion; respect for your fellow man. It would be great if you could argue more, but more would be out of your educational qualifications, and you probably don't have time for tutors. Understandable, 200 years ago aristocrats employed thinking intellectuals to raise their children and to develop policy. Today, who do you depend on? Salespeople and the government-funded academics, who are more detached from reality than CEOs who cannot think critically/conceptually.

So now you are going to step back from the campaign....and work behind the scenes, seeking government favours (i.e. extortion). You are no statesman. Another measly man hanging off the coattails of politicians.

You know very well the government is not going to scrap the GST. You ought to be campaigning for cuts in spending. God knows most of the money is a waste anyway. Solar programs when in 5 years solar technology will be 50% more efficiency. Silly policy, to which you seemingly remain indifferent. What exactly is your goal in life. The acquisition of more money so some parasitical government can extort it from you. What is the point? Find the best of yourself so a government can sink to its worst, knowing it has extorted wealth from yourself and others.

You find such comments hateful? Its not hate? Its frustration. Frustration that leaders don't think beyond the dollars. Knowing they are so psychologically repressed, they don't even realise the importance of the human mind. Aristocrats 200 years ago grasped more than you. Leaders like yourself have silently continued making money for what? So some government can take it away, as the Labor government is currently scheming away to take the miner's wealth with the Resource Rent Tax. Can you integrate these ideas sir? Or would you prefer to repress? At least Andrew Forrest had the courage to see the error of his ways with respect to the Mineral Resource Tax. The greater shame is that you, as a owner-CEO have more to lose than the idiots at Rio Tinto and BHP who initially 'negotiated' with the deceitful Labor government.

I'd change your values sir, or you will be losing a lot of customers. We don't have to worry about your employees, as we have a welfare state, a very profitable mining industry, solid job growth, offering higher profit margins than your uncertain future. Your 'showroom' style retailing is the past. Only the grandmas will miss you.

Hiding behind small retailers will not help your position. Facts are more important than perceptions; at least they should be. Pity you are true to the worst elements of your craft - sales. Faking reality. You don't extricate yourself so easily from such a position. You either stand proud and confident or you apologise prefusely. You have lost your sales skills. Bad sale man!

Gerry Harvey: "That's not in my nature to run away - I'll stand up and fight".

Here is your problem. Stand and fight for what? Check your premises and you might just realise your were wrong.

Gerry Harvey: "If I think something is right I'll fight for it, always have. If it's wrong or I've been proved wrong I'll walk away and I'll apologise".

I would hurry up if I was you. Principled, honest men make decisions on a dim. Dishonest ones bluster and relentlessly drag it out for years. Dishonest men cause wars; honest men avoid them. Being self-righteous is going to cost you a lot of money. Remember, you have more to lose. Principles are practical - believe it or not - you just have to invest in facts and principles, as opposed to political pull, perceptions and smarmy sales talk. The problem is - you have to realise you are fighting the wrong battle.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Paul Hogan fights back

Share |

The saga of the Australian Tax Office persecution of Paul Hogan and other ‘high profile’ people continues. For a number of years the Australian government has been persecuting Paul Hogan as a means of keeping you, the taxpayer compliant. It is ‘psychological warfare’ of sorts. Like the 'shock and awe' psychological warfare doctrine that the US government adopted in Iraq. That's right, you are at war with the ATO, and you don't know it. Its your interest versus theirs.

The strategy of the tax office is to keep you paying tax by burdening you with fear. Yep, its no different from the Nazis. Their strategy is equally as immoral, they just hide behind this thin veil of legitimacy called 'democracy'. People erroneously think democracy is about protecting rights. It is not. It is about 'stability' as the standard of value. Democracy has no capacity to protect your rights because even if it gives you 'token' political rights, your right to 'exist' means little if you have scant or 'token' property rights. The reason why you don't have economic rights is because world governments cannot extort wealth from you if you (i.e. Tax expropriation) if you had them. So don't expect any UN charter to protect those.

The intent of the government was to make an example out of Paul Hogan. What if he wins? He would have proved that only the rich have rights...and what right is that...the same right to extort wealth from powerless taxpayers. If the ATO attacked everyone who didn’t pay it would cost a lot, and make the tax system less efficient, as well as highlight the extent of non-compliance. Instead, they persecution high profile people like Paul Hogan and Wesley Snipes to make an example of a well-resourced taxpayer. The right strategy is for people like Paul Hogan to join with other high-profile people to change the system. Maybe he can join with Wesley Snipes, the mining industry (which has loads of money and hate new taxes) tycoons like Andrew Forrest and geez, what about all those billionaires in the USA. They aren't all liberals.

In a series of blogs we have defended Paul Hogan,

1. Hogan's moral rights swept aside

2. Thieving ATO targets Paul Hogan

We have highlighted the persecution that he and others have been subjected to, but I suggest he is making a grave mistake in his latest plans. It was announced in the press today that Paul Hogan is going to sue the Australia Tax Office for its denigration of his character. There are several problems with this:

1. The Australian taxpayers are as much victims of the system as he is, so his efforts to recoup money from the ATO are merely Hogan persecuting Australians. His loss of income is no more tragic than the 30% people are forced to pay every year. He probably pays a lot less...lucky for him....he probably uses less services than us, and anyway, I don't want my persecution to be justification or some moral claim upon him.

2. Paul Hogan has the greater capacity to fight the tax office because of his reputation and wealth, and yet he has only taken an unprincipled, ‘narrow’ self-interest perspective. He could have conveyed a 'moral argument' during his conflict with the tax office; notwithstanding that he is probably not a very convincing one. But if you are going to be persecuted, its in your interests to educate yourself. Otherwise you are not very convincing, and you are destined to get ripped off by a lot of lawyers....who the law serves far better than any other. Middlemen fare the best in this system.

How is personal liberty served by Paul Hogan suing the ATO? It is not. The public have as much reason to call ‘foul’ from the government, which is a tyranny of sorts, its just that they don’t have his means to fight, nor a team of lawyers to whom he can outsource this fight. Why? Because the government has the 'unlimited' resources of the taxpayer at its disposal. The reality is that Hogan should use his resources to repudiate the ‘system of government’ and not to blunder public resources, which are actually taxpayer resources misappropriated and squandered by the government.

He ought to be fighting in the High Court for the right to recover damages from the ‘executive’ government, i.e. the minister in charge, the Tax Commissioner, who are ultimately responsible for execution of the law, if not the political parties who oversaw the enactment of the laws. Not the Australian people, who really have no ‘effective’ representation. Democracy is a tyranny which empowers ‘unaccountable people’, who cannot even be considered representatives because there is no ‘conditionality’ to their functional capacity. i.e. I don’t vote, but if I did, I would not renounce my support for an MP I helped elect. Our constitution is seriously flawed. It needs to be tested in the High Court.

I might add that I suspect that Hogan’s lawyers contrived this plan to sue the government. This system greatly enriches lawyers. It has no interest in improving the system. It loves the expansion of statutory law because its arbitrary and lacks and context like common law. i.e. They want statutory law because it’s impossible to interpret since it’s so contradictory, so it entails the ambiguities, loopholes, that they savour.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Reinhart move on Fairfax a move for 'fair' speech

Share |

This is a very interesting development. We have a Labor government, and several media groups with a propensity to suck up to government in order to retain ratings. You can't very well maintain relevance unless you court the favour of politicians. Politics dominates everything, not to mention 30% of GDP and more if there was a new mining tax.

Enter Gina Reinhart, the daughter of long-retired iron ore magnate Lang Hancock. She now controls a $5 billion iron ore empire in WA. The bad news is that the government is trying to control it, or extort wealth from her.

So what is Reinhart to do. Well, you launch a takeover bid for a newspaper. She has already spent $50mil to gain a 10% stake of the company. The implication is that she will probably soon be seeking control in order to ensure 'fair' coverage.

Gina, I just want to say that I would love to be a contributing writer to your paper. I am a mining engineer, I hate the collectivist government we have, I hate unaccountable, extortionate and unconditional taxes.

The bad news is that my partner is Filipino. :(

I suspect though she might turn you around, and she is great at search engine optimisation.

The sad reality is that one has to take over a newspaper in order to inject some objectivity into the media. The question is whether Gina can deliver.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Assange - founder of WikiLeaks - a national hero

Share |

The ascension and current persecution of Julian Assange reads like a plagiarised script of one of Ayn Rand's novels about the persecution of the individualist by the state. I am by no means a nationalist, but I am both surprised and proud to know that Julian Assange came from Australia. I would harbour this "criminal" anytime. You might ask why. There are a number of reasons:

1. The dubious arguments for persecuting him

I have just downloaded and read through all the reasons cited by people for the good and bad of Assange's WikiLeaks. These comments suggest that there are a lot of proud Americans, mostly military personnel I suggest, who love their country no matter what it does. One of the problems with these loyal foot-soldiers is they have no education, they come from broken families, and the love of their country is about all they have. They are as dangerous Neo-Nazis as the one's in the Middle East they fight....so I would not look for intellectual guidance from their 'carpet bombing' of CNN and Fox News stories. This is a US govt publicity machine easily mobilised by the US military hierarchy. The US govt is managing collateral damage – the difference is that they have the numbers – millions of military personnel, as well as other nationalists in the Christian mid-west…and that is just the Americans. This is an 'inside job' by an American...yet they paint it as the efforts of an anti-American Australian.

2. The efforts made to discredit him

The principle effort to discredit Assange was his alleged rape of two women in Sweden. When one reads the nature of the allegations and the prosecutor’s handling of the case, it very much looks like a political smear, with a Swedish public servant overruling ‘due process’. The problem of course for Assange is that he appears to be defying a judge by breach a court ruling. Fortunately, I guess he can argue ‘gone fishing…international politics is too stressful’. The problem with complying is that he can readily be assassinated by any government agency. He is proof of the fear governments have for accountability – and the efforts to which they will go to prevent its spread. This is the way government functions – by managing perceptions through intimidation. We see little in the way of regulating corporations. Instead they target and persecute high-profile people like Paul Hogan in Australia and Wesley Snipes in the USA. The Australian Taxation Office and the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are among the most pernicious authorities in the world. They do not care as long as they get their money and retain their power over unthinking or safe voters….who think they have a choice.

3. The nature of the people persecuting him

People have this misconception that politicians serve an important purpose. The argument is that government protects us from invaders, criminals and protects those who cannot protect themselves. They manage the economy and they preserve the ‘rule of law’. This is fallacy. It was never true. They were never advocates of your interests in the same way that your car salesman is not an advocate of your interests. Why? They are the legal authority, and they are less accountable than the car salesman, but they offer no guarantees or warranties. They do not pay any damages either – the taxpayer does. For CEO and bankers – it’s the shareholder who pays. Do you want to know what happens to one of the government’s own people – a public servant – who defied a government that has no real power to tax – they get persecuted. This women gave evidence in Aaron Russo’s film Freedom to Fascism. I am sure I will be registered on some CIA database for citing this movie.

4. The value of the material he is releasing

The value of the material being released by WikiLeaks is that it will show a number of things. It will highlight the nature of the actions by politicians and bureaucrats; it will give approval to the release of more content by other people. There is a strong divide between the public servant and the corporate world. The reason why politicians prevent private citizens breaking into the political world is because it has its own culture. It is the culture of a 'foot soldier' who unthinkingly performs a "service" in accordance with the rules. The rules are not questioned in this culture. You simply just act. The reason why private people are persecuted by this culture; the reason why the private sector is locked out of this culture is because with private 'infiltration', the culture and its legitimacy collapses. This is why private workers are not able to become public servants. It is why you are either born into or 'migrate' into such jobs. The other powerful consideration is that public servants struggle to get jobs in the 'commercial' arena, so government is a monopoly, so you don't want to upset your single employer, because you quickly run out of options. The same is true for political party-appointed judges. They serve the two major parties because they are the only people who can remove or discredit them....and then where would they work? So much for judicial independence...and of course they are appointed by the two major parties. After a lifetime of court rulings you would think that the political parties would have a good sense of which High Court judges are not going to engage in 'judicial activism'.

World governments are going to persecute Assange like no one else. I am actually surprised he is still alive. I guess the reason is that he has been smart enough to establish a group of geeks who share his values. It is harder to discredit an organisation which is as dispersed as Al Queda. But that is about as far as the analogy goes. These guys use lawyers and the 'rule of (bad) law', so I know the governments will win.....but bad law takes time to make determinations.

5. The values of the people persecuting him

The hypocrisy is not an accident...and its probably organised. I don't think I have been to a country where there are not a plethora of stories of US personnel raping people...Japan, the Philippines, Korea...and yet we have military personnel smearing him....not the US military personnel who leaked the material...something very asymmetrical about that. Killing the messenger? Why this messenger...not the US personnel. The leaker is a US soldier...he is the traitor, yet the focus is an Australian. On this level, he is smeared as 'not journalism' because he just publishes. Yes, that's right. His material is completely uncensored. This makes it particularly embarrassing to the US government. They have no capacity to argue that it is not true; that its 'bias'. Its fact..it was said. No one person, even an organisation, could write all this content. This is like a Mars Rover satellite sending back gigabytes of information on the soul of the US government and its says CORRUPT! CORRUPT! CORRUPT! People have to realise that this is not one corrupt man at the top. This is corruption on a systematic scale. This is an Obama administration defending the efforts of previous administrations, knowing that his party is equally culpable.

6. The lengths they will go to stop him

We can expect that the US government will go to any lengths to stop WikiLeaks publishing his materials. I would encourage everyone to download the material and read it themselves from www.wikileaks.org. I expect that the US will attempt to use its political links, even coercion and blackmail to shut down the sites; it will use all manner of hacking tools to perpetrate the WikiLeaks site, but also the sites of anyone who supports him. I expect I will be a marked man for supporting him. Frankly I suspect that I am already on a 'blacklist' for governments around the world. One realises when one has been placed on a blacklist. It happened to me in Japan. Suddenly your material does not get published. The large media companies have lists of people for whom they will not publish. Whether its a disdain for ideology or a government list, who knows? Certainly there is a close relationship between the two party duopoly in each country, which have 'rules of engagement' to protect their 'market share', or entrenched political position. Democracy in democracy - nonsense. We are as 'two party' as Russia is a 'one party' state; and as they say, there is not a great deal that divides them.

Aside from the attacks on his website and allies, we can expect the US government and allied governments to take measures to discredit him. We have seen this already, and we have seen people avoiding the intellectual issues by simply smearing him as a 'pervert', a 'rapist'. This is military personnel posting this 'smear'.

I urge you to read the bias of the mainstream US media, and read the contents from people on the website. We might consider them spammers. They have a political agenda, whether its personal-political or organised/paid by the US government. I have seen the same done by the Aquino Administration in the Philippines when he was discredited after his election and gaff over his handling of a mass-murder of HK tourists by one of his police officers. This was a case of govt versus government. Assange will be persecuted by all governments. He represents a threat to all unaccountable, disreputable government.

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

Author - Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax | Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Business tycoon recommends new tax

Share |

Were we not raised to believe that capitalists loath taxes and like cutting them to maximise profits. The current tax debate in Australia shows how things have changed. Stranger than fiction; Gerry Harvey, the tycoon behind the Harvey Norman retail chain in Australia wants to see more taxes....not upon himself, but levied upon others. He does not argue for less taxes, but rather more. I wonder if he would have supported the Resource Rent Tax on miners, which would have seen them paying a tax rate of up to 63% in the dollar? I wonder what 'moral position' he would take in 20 years when the government decided to adopt a universal tax rate of 63% to treat everyone 'fairly'. After all why should miners pay 63% when Google pays 0.1%. Its not fair. So by all means raise everyone's taxes to 63%.

If you follow this logic, you start understanding the history of taxes. Back in the old days, we used to pay just 3-5%. Now government expenditure accounts for 30-50% of the economy across Western countries, so we have come to accept taxes. We need to ask why. The reason was - people loved the idea of taxing the rich. No one cared about them because they were rich. People did not care because they had no cares because they had lots of money. It did not matter that they had principles (i.e. a belief in freedom from coercion). For the majority, the taxation was practical. Coercive but practical. The govt then had the justification it needed to increase taxation. Principles had been dispensed with (i.e. Statutory law displaced common law).

Let's flip back to today. We have governments always keen to extend their taxing powers. We have a business tycoon who is very close to the Labour government. In fact, his best friend is John Singleton, who does all their advertising campaigns. So he talks to his mate, and says "I know I'm a minority, but I really think I could be making 10% more profits if the tax system was more equitable". John says "No worries, I'll get on to my mate Gillies, and line you up a good deal". John gets on to Gillies and says "Gillies, you want a good deal on election campaigning". Gaw, gee John...we don't have the money. We are only popular with business for whom we cut special deals". So John replies: : "But Gillies, this is good for the government. I think you should increase the tax burden on small retailers so big retailers like my friend can make more money. You don't have to decrease slavery....you just have to broaden its effects".

And that is the legacy of business people who can't think...and not just tycoons who didn't finish high school. Most businessmen today have no integrity. The reason is they consider ideas or ideology as detached from reality. That is the universe of moral scepticism we live in. Values detached from facts. Beyond crossing the road and not getting hit by a car...beyond that level of correlation they struggle because they are not validated or rewarded for thinking conceptually about such things..it could only lead them into psychological repression or anxiety and depression. Now that you mention it....those symptoms are on the increase. Is it the pressures of 'modern society or is it the blatant contradictory in government policy, and the whole state of social discourse. I think I might be on to something. Nah! I must be mistaken. Governments give us ample opportunity to participate in public discourse. I get to vote every 3-4 years, write submissions which are ignored....and I get a lot of tax deductions. They even gave me a $1,000 dividends a few years ago despite a 50% increase in bracket creep in the last decade and a mining, property and stockmarket boom which delivered them mass revenue increases....nope I must be wrong.. They are lovely people. Besides, their Gerry and John's mates!

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Cancelling Third World Debt: Bad idea

Share |

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are considering the merits of forgiving billions of dollars in Third World debt. Cancellation of the $70 billion debt would wipe out obligations resulting from poorly run governments. But that is not all it would do. It would bury forever a legacy of failure by multilateral government agencies to raise prosperity in the Third World. Consider that many Third World nations are enjoying an economic revival now; not because of government funding, but because of capitalism. Yes, markets rather than government intervention. Of course there will always be government intervention, but there are several types:

1. Facilitator government - which allows markets to function efficiently. It generally involves protection of rights, laws which aid disclosure, facilitate government decision making.

2. Distortive government - the type of government intervention which are politically motivated. They allow governments or political parties to retain power or influence, accumulate kickbacks for personal gain, or to fund their political campaigns, to mount civil wars. It includes the debt creation process by which governments fund all their largesse, the way they prop up sectors of the economy for the sake of political allies.

3. Oppressive and coercive government - the type of government which restricts the 'effective' capacity of people to enjoy the benefits of freedom, as well as demanding unconditional submission to public policy, whether the slavery of taxation (i.e. breaches of economic rights) or political persecution (i.e. breaches of civil rights). You really can't isolate these. You are not just an idea. An idea is a value because it manifests in the material. Freedom to work is meaningless unless you have the right to collect income. A 25% tax rate makes you just a part-time slave, and your government a part-time thief. Their incompetency arises from their lack of efficacy, lack of accountability and the unconditional servitude to which you have committed your life.

So before you consider whether you support Third World debt relief....consider this:

1. The money squandered by these multilateral government agencies was your money. It was dulled out with as much accountability as the process by which it was stolen from you, or you unthinkingly surrendered it.

2. The debt is being relieved by the agencies which incompetently and gratuitously gave it away. It came easy to them, as all money derived from coercion does, and they squandered it.

3. The debt cancellation will conceal the last vestiges of government incompetency on a grand scale, embodying multiple project management teams. Why? Might the concept have been flawed from the start?

4. The cancellation of the debt will not spell the end of these institutions. They will not be wound up. In fact, the debt cancellation will in all probability allow the IMF and other such agencies to start afresh. It will allow them to start anew....to make the same mistakes. You might ask? Have they learned their lesson? The answer is clearly no. No, because they have just bailed out Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and more countries will follow.

5. The process does not effect you because you don't see it. You don't see where you tax dollars go. You don't want to see, because you are not in control of your life, as you might wish to be. You do not see the debasement of your currency, you sparingly what to see the waste. Like many other people, you would probably prefer to just any memory of such travesties of justice, and hope for the best. People have been hoping for a long time now. Some people see progress. We have more human rights now right. We have political rights. We need to worry less about political persecution. True enough, but that is because you have no political voice. You have been silenced by democracy. Drowned out. There might have been a time when your voice mattered because it was the voice of reason....no longer. Now you are a number. Others have rights too right? Rights to impose on your rights. This is the basis of rights today - not protections but impositions. The carrot of course is that they are also entitlements....which you hope you can get because others are getting them. Or maybe you are too proud? But you will lose that quality when you realise that the burden placed upon you is too much. Prosperity is increasing right? Yet the age of retirement is being delayed. Governments are debasing your money faster than can make it. It would be criminal if it was not performed by governments which make the rules.

You will here that the governments whose debts are to be forgiven are in a dire state, and these huge debts are likely to discourage them to rejoin the global economy. These are countries like Uganda, Myanmar and Mozambique. It is fair to say that the poor people of those countries had as much control over your 'gratuities' as you had over giving them. The difference between their flagrant consumption is the same as your flagrant gratuity. It was never yours, and yet they and you sanction these institutions.

Today many African indebted countries are able to restore their balance sheets, and otherwise prosper simply by governments butting out of people's lives. The process started with reform of Japan, which gave rise to the ascension of the Asian Tiger economies. These Asian tigers are resource poor, and they are demanding resources from these resource-rich African nations. This process is resulting in Third World governments accepting responsibility and accountability. It is a discipline imposed by the market. Its not perfect because the participants in the market are not perfect. They can only be as healthy as the mixed or ambivalent values which drive humanity. These issues will be resolved over time; but not until societies repudiate the institutional structures which entrench them, whether its multilateral agencies like the World Bank, public (or worse religious private) education, representative democracy (which legitimatises tyranny of the majority...sorry minority). Only when we repudiate these collectivist institutions will we have real freedom from coercion.

The debt canceling proposal has no strings demanding reform; thus, it's the same bureaucrats simply spending other people's money.

Don't allow the IMF and the World Bank to be erase their old mistakes so they can make new ones.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

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

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The intellectual decline of the business sector

Share |

The Australian government is threatening to adopt a new Resource Rent Tax. In protection of its interests, miners are saying things like "You will stop us creating jobs" - the government is saying 'we will create more". The miners are saying "But we pay more tax than the banks", the government is saying "Not according to our calculations". The government is saying 'resources are a public asset', the miners are replying 'we already state royalties'. Resources are of course regulated by the states, thus if the Federal government takes a cut, it will undermine new projects, which will undermine the State tax receipts as well. Not that WA or Qld will have a shortage, but they might appreciate the excess, and certainly other states will be missing out.

All this political 'energy'. Sometimes I think the world is just not worth all the effort. Some people seem just not worth the effort. But what else is there to live for but to complain to various interest groups, to get the best possible outcome. I frankly would prefer the mining industry, as useless as they are, to retain the profits rather to witness the frustration of governments falling over themselves to waste the money. I still feel this way, even after the following dialogue with a mining industry executive over the last few days. It goes like this.

1. Soliciting interest in Resource Rent Tax issue

I raised the issue of the Resource Rent Tax issue, suggesting this would be a huge impediment to the Australian economy, and would ultimately prove to be another unsavoury move towards fascist. I also suggested that on these issues the mining industry was its own worst enemy. His reply was supportive and positive:

"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. The miners do not present well. We are dealing with really evil people in Federal government just now. I will copy this to .......... who will be interested in what you are up to. They are very much "on the case" of this latest taxation proposal, as they are attacking the ETS".

Ok, we have established that he is politically correct. My concern is here that any effort has to display integrity, otherwise your argument falls apart. I am a bit disappointed with my reply to him because I should have taken more time writing it. I am overwhelmed by all the things I am trying to achieve, so I often tend to under-invest in important points...but this was my reply in part...The problem is I tend to presume or hope that I will be having a dialogue with people who have healthy self-esteem and a primary respect for facts. In fact, I get defensiveness and vulnerability...and I must admit I did not put my best foot forward.

2. Going slightly off track

"You mentioned that Rudd was bad, and I agree, but if it was just Rudd I would not care because he would be replaced within a year. Howard's First Home Buyers Grant is an example of government over-stimulating the economy for its own advantage. Its no better than India's price controls. Rudd then 'doubles up' when he joined the roulette table. This is more serious because it is a succession of political failures which reflects upon a poor system. Representative democracy is a 'false promise', we need a consensus based democracy where reason is the standard of value, not arbitrary vote buying, concessions, extortion. Certainly we need to remove the duopoly if there is to be good policy".

He probably didn't have a problem with that. The problem I have with it is that I am trying to educate him because I lack confidence in people's ability to grasp ethical principles. My 'defensiveness' comes after years of treading softly around people's egos....well their presumption of one. Its the next section where I should have worded it better.....I've altered it slightly to remove a personal reference....as this is intended to educate not disparage.

3. Establishing ethical framework

"I don' think ...... was selfish. This is a flawed conception amongst the general community, including business. Philosophers never challenge it; they assume it. That it is moral to serve others. Its the ethics underpinning socialism and fascism (Hitler: You are nothing, your nation is everything). Capitalism is selfishness - 'trading value for value'. But people stop there. Integrating with that moral concept is Masalow's hierarchy of values, and Rand's theory of values. The issue is not just that you act in your self-interest, but that you possess a coherent framework of values, so you 'know what constitutes your self interest'."

4. Fixing up my mistake

In fact philosophers don't so much assume it, they rationalise it. It is however probably my attempt to personalise it where I went off track....and condescending. Hmmm... well I actually don't know how to breach this topic without making people feel vulnerable, but sure as hell this comment did not help. Kind of embarrassed to disclose it, but in fairness to the counterparty..... I was trying very hard to be conciliatory...like stepping on stones to avoid bruising his ego...but on reflection I did a bad job of it. Really bad :( Unsurprisingly it had the opposite effect. I really ought to proof read this stuff. My comment was - some context missing:

"Very healthy I'm sure, but to the extent that your moral standard is 'perhaps superficially' altruism (non-selfishness) is good, then you might be placing yourself in a moral conflict as well, and perhaps carrying some guilt for that. You are selfish, and you should be proud of it, though I might suggest being tactful about how you present that knowledge. There is a difference between being altruistic and generous. Your success has met all your needs, so you are in a position to be 'generous'.
If you identify it as Rudd's moral high ground, you are actually living or affirming Rudd's conception, the conception of 2000 years under pre-science religion. If you can appreciate that, then you might appreciate the battle miners have is not political, its actually in the fields of epistemology-ethics. Miners tend to be a pragmatic lot like yourself".

Well - poor grammar to be sure, though mostly correct. Its just poorly argued. I might add that my dubious efforts to convince a business executive that the business community cannot win (and has not won) a battle against government by fighting at a political level. It has in the process conceded the realm of ethics, values and ideas to government. But it goes further because wealthy CEOs around Australia are - from a longer term perspective - shooting themselves in the foot by failing to support ideas which provide them with an ethical defense as well as a 'pragmatic' one because ultimately they cannot win the political contest without a moral code. Since most CEOs are mere managers, then ultimately the cost is being borne by shareholders. The reply was the following:

"I wish you well with all this but frankly I don't have time to be engaging in this sort of analysis. I truly wish you luck in putting the blow torch to the belly of the government but could not give a stuff about a lot of the other matters to which you are applying your superior intellect, eg. what is "selfishness" or what isn't. I believe I use the word correctly, end of story".

The implication is that CEOs and all Australians are financing the enemy. They pay taxes which are used to fund academics who are attacking their best interests. The government also uses its tax dollars to develop new taxes. Consider the following papers:

1. Paper 1 - The theoretical or ethical justification - It argues in essence that we need to turn away from selfish rationality and embrace cooperation and reciprocality. Anyone who has a sound understanding of markets, psychology will recognise that cooperation is selfish, its simply a broader perspective of self interest that incorporates others needs. This is what I was trying to communicate to the executive above. i.e. We give to get. If we don't get we stop giving. We initiate giving because we trust the counterparty. If we don't have trust in them or the process, then we don't initiate. This does not dawn upon academics because they feel compelled to provide a rationalisation for altruism. After all how are they to they justify living off expropriated wealth if they do not have the values to support the 'common good'. Their flaw goes even deeper than the CEOs. Alas, we will all pay the price.

2. Paper 2 - The practical or political execution - Treasury report on the Resource Rent Tax

It is rare that you will find a report by industry defending itself. If you do its likely to be about how many jobs they create, exports they generate...tax they already pay. This is amusing...they make a virtue of paying tax (i.e. sacrifice). This justification comes from Adam Smith. It was a novel idea back in the 18th century, however its time to develop a theory of values. Hehe. Rudd must be laughing "Allow us to make you more virtuous, you haven't sacrificed enough though". The industry is too busy making short term money to worry about their long term enslavement. I have no doubt that Hitler had the same easy path to infamy. I might add that, just as people only start worrying about kids when they start breaking laws, so the community only starts worrying about their government when it starts killing people. Rest assured you will not miss the first few hundred. The US only complained about political killings by its 'ally' government in the Philippines after they killed over 600 political opponents. I guess it could be argued those dissenters were collectivists, but by no measure is the Philippine government defenders of freedom. The Church was one of the last to end its support for Hitler....just as it was one of the last to acknowledge child abuse. All these philosophical perspectives - apart from mine - has one thing in common - a lack of respect for truth (or the facts of reality).

Remember however that owner CEOs have more invested than 'manager' CEOs, and yet these people are not really stepping up. People like John Talbot (Macarthur Coal), Andrew Forrest (Fortescue Metals) and a great many others have a great deal more reason to adopt the right strategy. I think one of the biggest problems with capitalism is the fact that 'managers' control the assets more than owners. It ought to be good reason for people to invest in 'owner' companies. Though they also present risks since society is structured on the wrong ethical principles.

Some will be critical of my interpretation because its just one man. He is surely not representative of the rest. Well I will let you know how many others step forward. As Dr Phil says "This is not my first rodeo". Incidentally, his psychology is underpinned by the same ethical conflict. I don't expect any. Not totally their fault. Their education system is the same as yours and there is great practicality in being "goal-orientated". But you need a breadth of knowledge to see around corners.

Perhaps the bigger issue is that this guy probably loathes me more than the academics who he is obliged to finance because of government-instigated tax expropriation. They live off his 'enslaved hide', but I guess I took something more valuable to him than money (which he has plenty of). I took away his pretense of cognitive efficacy. Not that he is an idiot. He is a smart guy. Just he is not mindful of what is important. Ethics. Not that he's criminal...just he does not have an explicit appreciation of his values.

So what do I need from such people? Credibility certainly. A good argument gets you so far. Under the current political system; reason is not the standard of value. But how do you get people to listen when you have no authority. Frankly I don't want power, I just want government to renounce its coercion. I don't need money from these people. Unlike the bureaucrat and academic I can support myself. Of course I'd love to be able to fight a High Court case to defend liberty, but honesty that is for people who have greater diplomatic skills than me. Ultimately that is the biggest aspect of making money these days. Friends with shared goals and values. I can't say not being validated with endorsements or praise by others is a little frustrating, but ultimately I guess its a hard slog and I've not earned it. My people skills are not there yet. Frankly I can't be bothered, so hopefully there is a diplomat among you who will carry that torch. I will however chisel away at the coal face hoping that someone will be burning the stuff at the surface. More probably it will just rot, just as there were unused stockpiles of product in Stalinist Russia rotting....waiting for some customer.

Ok, I apologised to the executive concerned for my condescending manner....which was actually not intended, since I respect the guy. He responded...

"No problem and no apology required. You are trying to achieve a good outcome and have good values. I do admire that. And you have tenacity which is great".

This leaves a question in my mind...is he just being polite/diplomatic, or does he really mean it? I think he means it because he is the type of guy who speaks his mind. This prompts me to ask - am I good in a selfish way, or an altruistic way, since I think selfishness is good, and he thinks it's bad. By that I mean selfish in the 'principled' enlightened way. I also think he is selfish, but in the guilty, apologetic, conflicted way. Mixed economies persist because good men do nothing....well nothing to reconcile mixing of values. Enuf said.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

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