Scottish independence - The values for change

Share |

Scotland is taking the fateful step towards independence. The question is – should it? I’m an Australian critical analyst who has taken upon answering the questions which people in this fledgling nation cannot. They cannot for any of a number of reasons – namely:
1. Empiricism – that is an undeveloped capacity to appraise abstract ‘analytical’ arguments
2. Bias arising from a misplaced sense of identity
3. Presumptuous ideas about the issue, i.e. Knowing something about politics, but not about economics, and other pertinent subjects
4. Foresight – Not knowing the future outlook

Of course, it is not a question of possessing perfect wisdom, but simply making the best possible decision within one’s means. To this end, I’m simply providing a ‘heads-up’, with the qualification, that I’m not perfect either. In any respect, perfection is not an option open to any of us, since our political system is so disempowering it is impossible for any of us to reach it. Therein lies the illusion of this campaign; the idea that things will be better if we simply reject the British. These exponents of independence however will be functioning on the same fundamental premises as their predecessors. There is one solid reason why they will be doing that – the voter would be apprehensive if confronted by the reality of change and justice, and there is no hope in comforting millions of people, so the ‘new system’ is destined to only achieve some fraction of ‘the optimal’. The question is whether that ‘fractional change’ is worth the effort, or is Scotland destined to fall prey to the same mistakes as Britain. Some people like to gamble. I like ‘proven paths’ supported by evidence because there is actually no need to take unqualified risks. We have a mind; we need to use it. The schedule is now overtaking the events. People are destined to be engaged in the 11th hour. The ‘no team’ has only now just got serious about the campaign. That is a measure of their disrespect; but what of the implied ‘respect’ of Alex Salmond and his team. Well, Salmond has offered very little detail about the trail he is blazing for Scotland. Is that a measure of his regard for Scottish voters? It’s hard to say. He might well be avoiding controversy because:

1. He is just a custodian of the people’s interests, so he’s open to ideas
2. He just appreciates that the opposition are destined to use anything he says to create fear. i.e. Might the devil be in the detail, or the absence of it? That ultimately depends on the balance in any debate.

So let us consider the problems for Scottish secession that I have raised above.

Empiricism 

Empiricism is a philosophical perspective that compels the observer to find comfort in evidentiary sources of knowledge. It is a perspective that holds ideas or concepts as suspicious or deceptive, whilst experience is ‘grounded’ and tangible. The reality is that people who are explicit or implicit exponents of ‘experience’ at the expense of ideas are simply not well-equipped to think. The problem is not that analytical thinking is a source of uncertainty; the problem is that they never employed the methodology to the point of achieving any comfort in it, or any sense of efficacy from employing it. By implication, it became a tool that they felt compelled to deride, not because they found a better tool, but because:

1. Their relativist standards precluded them from caring whether they were ‘analytically’ efficacious
2. Their subjective perspective allowed them to simply find another tool, i.e. empiricism, which gave them comfort
3. They were able to join a ‘school of thought’ that gave them the validation to persist with the method, and the compartmentalisation to avoid scrutiny.

The fact of the matter is that sound thinking depends upon both rational ‘analytical’ and experiential (‘empirical’) engagement. The reality is that people are prone to ‘flip’ from analytical to empirical thinking, but struggle to engage both skills at the same time. One might wonder why I have not identified rationalism as a problem. The reason is that rationalism is largely confined to Continental Europe, with schools like the Austrian School and praxeology. These schools are significant, but they are not influential in politics. The empiricists reign supreme, largely because of their propensity to:

1. Proven success. Empiricists have been able to draw credibility from successful application in the ‘basic’ physical sciences, i.e. People simply took a leap of faith that they could apply seemingly ‘non-analytically’ methods to the human sciences. They do ‘conditionally’, but derision for analytical thinking gave the empiricists an ‘easy path’. The problem is that the human sciences entertain far more complex problems and there is less scope to experiment with humans in ‘closed systems’. This meant they could not ignore the broader context, so instead they derided ideas or our ability to know anything, i.e. scepticism. 
2. The tangibility of empiricism. Empiricism is more tangible, since you can refer to data, and larger data sets have even greater appeal. What seems lost on people is that it requires an ‘analytical’ frame of reference, or a methodology, however that is just a rationalisation to comfort people. People are only really interested in ‘results’, and methodology is gives scant consideration. Most research is peer-reviewed by empiricists, and controversial research goes untested. It is a leap of faith in the methodology of testing research and the results of research. 
3. Derision for ideology. The empiricists have been very successful in deriding ideology. There is a good reason why this is so; “everyone appreciates the self-evident”, whether it’s the candy bar, the tax concession, the cash back. The point of these ‘tangible’ values is that people get them, and don’t appreciate the long-range, the conceptual, or the unidentified benefit that does not take a form they can immediately perceive. Practical extortionists have therefore reigned supreme in politics, journalism, business and other modes of engagement. They didn’t have to account for their methods, as long as they had practical outcomes that trumped all but the largest ‘inconvenient, obstinate ‘extortive’ oppositions, like the union movement and Greens. This didn’t make these oppositions right; it just made them an obstacle to prevailing powerful interest groups. Practical people then had to suppress any respect for ideas that contradicted their practices, so they needed an intellectual framework for attacking ideas’. i.e. Empiricism.
4. Appeal to authority. There is an expectation that results sanctioned by some body is a sufficient measure of its validity. In a world of competent practitioners of scientific method, you would hope for that, but we should have no such comfort. The irony is that they call their method ‘the scientific method’. The reality is that it’s a political sanction for ‘appeal to authority’ or ‘faith in non-analytical scientific method’. This of course serves exponents of the status quo (conservatives) and modern liberalism (‘liberals’). Interesting, for practical reasons, these counterparts hold sway over different public policy areas. Conservatives hold sway with economic interests, so classical liberal ideas dressed up as utilitarianism prevail, whilst liberals have been able to win over social policy with their popularity among the unions, churches, welfare lobbies and even conservative sympathisers. Both sides of politics therein stand opposed to analytical thinking because its ‘ideological’ and it’s derided as such because they can’t use it; but it can powerfully be used against them unless they can construct oppressive political agencies to curtail it. The reason analytical thinking is so distrusted is because even ‘specialist’ rationalists cannot make sense of the world. They are not generalists, or even if they are, too few of them are raised in a world offering sufficient ‘detachment’ from tragic ‘experience’ that they are destined to be shaped by it. Of course there can be a contrary explanation for those experiences, however finding such an explanation before analytically-minded people have had a chance to elucidate a ‘world view’ is a challenge, and then to expect any validation thereafter, is a challenge that most idealists won’t make.  

For these reasons there is an undeveloped capacity within ‘specialists’ to appraise abstract ‘analytical’ arguments. 

Various forms of bias

There are a number of forms of bias that makes people prone to poor decisions. These include:

1. Material bias that lend support to poor decisions. i.e. If you were a banker which was destined to lose their job, or vulnerable to adverse outcomes because of your position, then you might be compelled to make a decision that serves your short-range interests rather than your long-range interests. This can be extended to a material loss because your judgement was wrong, and you attempt to avoid acknowledging that by denial. 
2. Abstract bias arises where people are compelled to accept outcomes that avoid their sense of intellectual ambivalence or the necessity for them to learn, or change their position. The bias arises, not from material consequences, but moral apprehensions about a person’s capacity to solve a problem, whether themselves, or to convince others of the plausibility of the solution identified.

In either case it’s an attempt to avoid bad consequences or avoid ‘hard effort’ where one clearly has no sense of efficacy, and where such efficacy is not considered ‘practical’ under the contemporary political system. Efficacy is a source of motivation because it’s a source of validation, whether pride and reward. You can see that in our extortion-based political system that rationality does not get much validation simply because most people don’t or can’t (with confidence) engage in logical debates, and because rationality is not the standard of value. Such people are invalidated, whilst the unthinking are vulnerable to false arguments by political representatives who would manipulate them. Efficacy is instead depicted as a ‘social skill’, so rewards are bestowed upon one on the basis of one’s capacity to get along and placate others. Egoists are considered mentally ill or deficient under this scenario. It’s a straw argument that collectivists and statists are not accountable for. They care deride people readily with impunity because there are so many more of them.

Presumptuous ideas 

We have already described the problem of people ‘knowing a little bit of something’, therein thinking they are capable of engaging in any related endeavour. The problem with knowing a lot, but not everything, is that the thing you don’t know might be the ‘differentiating idea’ that makes the difference in how you think. There are basically two sources of presumption in society:

1. Entrenched ideas – Traditional ideas or values which were not questioned. There are a lot of these, and there are powerful institutions in the world dedicated to preserving these ideas. They are called ‘schools of thought’, but really they function more as ‘barriers to thought’ since they validate everyone entombed within, granting them the discretion, but not the compunction to engage with the outside world. Consider the power and influence of the churches. These institutions are still shaping the way kids are raised. Most adults think that their child should have a religious instruction to ensure they get ‘ethics’. For an atheist like myself, this is corruption from the first gasp of air. The church however is merely the first step towards a multiple of false dichotomies across the political spectrum.
2. Specialist ideas – I’ve already alluded to the folly of people who know a little, and who have come to accept as a ‘leap of faith’ the ideas of others. Clearly they don’t know enough to critically appraise those ideas. These are related problems because if something is not critically appraised it’s because it’s not so ‘superficial’ that it’s being popularly questioned, or because the critique is not so controversial or ‘popular’ that people are open to entertaining it. People still consider the popularity of an issue the measure of its value. When you are raised with a special skill you inadvertently accept peripheral knowledge upon which that idea depends. We have been doing that since birth, and most people don’t question those ideas; even seasoned philosophers and scientists. This is a source of presumption that is difficult for most people to overcome because most people are ‘practical people’ who don’t like to undermine their practicality in terms of their presupposed identity, values and purpose. Of course we are open to some change, but not change that would change our identity or loyalties. 

Perhaps the greatest threat or obstacle to intellectual reform or enlightenment are the entrenched values underpinning the humanities. The reason why these values are so entrenched is because the humanities is a deeper or more complex subject that the physical sciences. The struggles in the physical sciences arise not from the complexity of the variables so much as the absence of data. We are remote from data; whether data which depicts the furthest reaches of the universe, the depths of the lithosphere or the depths of the ocean. 

In the case of the humanities, we are clueless, not because of our inaccessibility to humans, but rather the multitude of variables that shape their lives, and their dispensation to dishonestly or defensively to avoid moral judgement or condemnation. This is understandable. If it becomes hard to understand people, then it becomes easy to judge them unfairly out of context. In political systems which treat us unfairly, we readily spurn those judgements which inadvertently make us feel vulnerable. Politics deals with issues that remain intractable after 200 years. We are still no closer to reconciling the issues of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Not because there is no evidence, but because some people are permitted the luxury of circumventing evidence for something more pressing – the right to extort influence over others. Yes, we are talking about representative democracy and the state’s power to coerce and tax. 

It helps politicians no end that the field of economics is equally open to question, because it is also complex and controversial. Again, people are divided into ‘schools of thought’ and are barely pressed to reconcile their ideas. Their political exponents are far better off by not performing any reconciliations, for they would surely surrender their bargaining position. There is no ‘position’ in settlement, only in the intractable problem. 

For this reason, the most ‘practical’ field of science or pseudo-science is surely the ‘behaviourist’ school of sociology, which studies the advanced nature of humans with proclivities towards certain tribal groups. This field of ‘pseudoscience’ is certainly validated by a political system which gives a sanction to ‘extorted’ tribal or collective values, and it is indeed interesting how even the concept of ‘individualism’ can be corrupted or twisted to recognise the ‘specificity’ or uniqueness of minorities, but never the smallest minority – the individual, on the premise that anything spurned or affirmed for others is morally ‘good’ an anything wanted for oneself is necessarily bad. i.e. The ego is spurned as a ‘corrupting influence’. The problem here is their psychological values, or their poorly developed conception of humanity, or human motivation. This is of course part of the presumptive, tragic context in which they ‘frame their science’. The tragic and sceptical world-view clearly reinforces the idea of the tribe being the standard of the good. The human conscious cannot be trusted, so any mind becomes a foundation for deceit or ‘greed’. This is the type of thinking that spurns human achievement in any person. Any good is only affirmed as a ‘collective achievement’. There is no room for personal glorification, and it doesn’t serve society to falsely affirm one’s personal responsibility when it was indeed a ‘collective contribution’, but neither does it serve anyone not to acknowledge the discrete contribution of individuals, and to so differentiate those contributions as a basis for validation or justice. 

We can therefore see that presumption is a serious problem in society, and we can also acknowledge the origin of the problem. There is two forms of ‘the good’. There is ‘the good’ as defined by science that recognises within humanity certain capacities to achieve value, just as all species of life seek to achieve some value from bacteria to the primates. There is also the personal, specific context in which every living thing acts or exists, including humans, and we ought to respect the importance of each human by acknowledging the importance of their values to them. When we seek to collectivise values, when we enshrine a code that forces people to seek or support (through taxation) collective ‘social values’, we are saying that the good is a distortion or a repudiation of self. This is a betrayal of self that cannot be permitted because it ultimately undermines human freedom. The depravity of this system becomes even more serious when you look at the political system of representative democracy, because this system proselytises this system as ‘virtuous’, when in fact, it disempowers humans from their values, goals and ultimately an objective notion of ‘the good’. It betrays them by doing so, but also by seeking some bureaucratic conception of ‘the good’ from an array of ‘expert’ public servants with scarcely any life experience, and raises their views upon a pedestal. So you can expect a government to defer to a litany of ‘authority figures’ in government who are sought to be express their views on ‘your good’. i.e. Oil executives, bankers, fund managers saying this will cost money, but it’s your money, and its being spent divorced from your values, and you are expected as a matter of faith, to expect that your interests will be served eventually. 

This is the type of thinking of course that leaves decision-making estranged from you, or Scottish voters. In the context of Scotland, the bankers are not interested in the long range interests of Scottish people. They are concerned with their short term interest as banking executives. They are interested in curtailing the bank’s expense and inconvenience. Most of them are expressing ‘exaggerated claims’ as to the impact of independence to achieve their ends. Nothing could be more disingenuous. In most cases, the impact will depend on how Britain and Scotland conduct themselves; and the answer to that question will not be known until after the referendum. Their Scottish assets could be veritable prizes after the referendum.

One of the entrenched values that can serve as a source of presumption is an entrenched sense of identity. We are born in a certain context or ‘environment’, and that environment embodies a package of experiences, people, values and institutional provisions that define the nature as human beings and of course the sameness of those around us, as well as the specific context which allows for differences as well. Humanity has for a long time been a growth proposition, which is accompanied by change. Such change ultimately threatens our values. Clearly we are accustomed to some measure of change and difference between us, but we have entrenched ideas about what is open to change, and what is not, in accordance with our values.

Foresight

One of the travesties of the public education system is that it has encouraged everyone to become specialists. Those people who become “generalists” like me are a betrayal of the system because “specialists” don’t appreciate the value of ‘informal’ education. Moreover they don’t welcome being reproached by ‘un-credentialed’ persons who challenge their values. They think ‘all good comes from government’ because they have come to view all standards as coming from government. Society is a complex system that demands understanding not simply one subject or ‘specialisation’, but a large number. There are two problems:

1. The “specialist” draws a great deal of confidence from the fact that they have ‘high degrees’, but those high degrees and any resulting analysis was based on ‘assumptions’ drawn from other fields. It is a problem because they are not destined to identify the nature of any contradictory values, nor seek to explain them, after all it’s not their ‘expertise’. They instead seek out ‘like-minded’ specialists with a compatible ‘world view’, and incorporate their research into their findings, happily citing the compatible evidence, and selectively and ‘conservatively’ ignoring the incompatible or irreconcilable research or findings.
2. There are no implications for a researcher ‘getting it wrong’. It’s not their money; they are not going to get fired unless they breach ‘common practice’, and these are the values that define their ‘identity’ resulting in a culture where everyone is systematically ‘in error’. This is a systemic failure of state-sanctioned education, where government standards have been imposed upon all education institutions, and everyone has been raised under the same model.

This is of course simply the institutional failure that is underpin by a epistemic and ethical value system that betrays the individual. The egoist is tolerated as a ‘rogue’ contributor, who is never validated because their values are considered to be a repudiation of the collectivist values of others. Rather than acknowledging the contribution these egoists have to make, these people are ‘invalidated’ and even ‘spurned’ as a cancer upon society. They don’t get the recognition or empathy they deserve, not because they don’t deserve it, but because they don’t need it. They are healthy despite their persecution as ‘greedy egoists’. But this is not the nature of every conflict. In the case of Scotland, we have one collective group seeking to differentiate itself from another collective group. Each attempts to extort some influence over another. The British parliament wants to hold the Scottish people to ransom, and Scottish politicians bemoan Scottish marginalisation, so they can do to the Scottish people what British politicians did to everyone in centuries past. They aren’t a repudiation of the British system, they are building a new franchise under it, and posing it as a solution to the system of old. If they want to disavow the past, they should take some time to disparage the old and formulate the system which would give people confidence in the ‘new’. 

This attempt at secession for Scotland lacks any respect for those people whom they profess to be custodians for. There is nothing compellingly new to justify secession. It rests not on love of certain values, but derision for contemporary custodians without standards. It leaves people accepting one group on faith simply because they are ‘not the same faces’ as before.  

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

The destabilisation of the Western security alliance - how Kim Dotcom challenged Western security agencies and the TPPA

Share |

Today was a big day in global politics, most particularly for two countries:
1. New Zealand - which faces an election in 5 days (20th Sept 2014)
2. Scotland - which faces a secession referendum in 3 days (18th Sept 2014)

The events arose because of a telecast by three men in effective political exile - Julian Assange (stuck in an Ecuadorian embassy for 2 years, fighting extradition to Sweden, who are obliged to send him to the US), Edward Snowden (holding effective asylum in Russia) and Kim Dotcom (a NZ resident who is fighting extradition proceedings) to the United States. They stood tonight together along with Glenn Greenwald, the Canadian journalist who published on the mass surveillance scandal in the USA, Dotcom's international lawyer Bob Amsterdam, Laila Harre (NZ Internet Party) and lastly Kim Dotcom. Harre is a former NZ Labour MP, who has joined Kim Dotcom to restore her political career by helping Kim Dotcom create a 'scandal'. Well, they achieved what they intended to do. They did several things:
1. They shone a light on the travesty which is global intelligence gathering
2. They no-doubt elevated apprehensions about the TPPA and the lack of consultation that is allowing governments to 'manage' global trade in ways that aid privileged interests, as opposed to 'free trade'. We are instead getting 'managed unfair trade'.
3. They were able to depict NZ PM John Key as a liar.

Having watched the entire event, there is good reason for John Key to worry. The reasons he will need to worry is because:
1. The TPPA is a source of uncertainty that will make the Conservative Party, and possibly even Winston Peter's NZ First more popular.
2. His credibility has taken a hit. The good news is that most NZ'ers are equally circumspect about Kim Dotcom and anyone who associates with him. Many NZ'ers are uncertain about the events that transpired, but are unlikely to think that the breaches of privacy laws are going to hurt them. i.e. People just don't see innocent people being placed in prison because the NZ government gathers intelligence. This might be the 'end result' in years to come, but they are just as worried about not voting him in, and giving power to a left alliance.
3. Many people are going to preserve their belief that Labour-Greens-Internet-Mana Parties have staged this event to 'cause an upset'. They staged this event just before an election. This is destined to be viewed as irresponsible and opportunistic, as if people would not already be thinking that Kim Dotcom did not have an agenda by staging the event, i.e. He wants to avoid extradition.

The revelations are not overtly new, however they do appear to show that John Key lied, or downplayed the significance of NZ surveillance. I don't really think NZ'er conservative voters and fellow pragmatists are going to be too worried about the live telecast. I think most have made up their minds, and they are going to think that:
1. John Key is lying to protect 'privileged information' as all the leaders have done before Key
2. If Labour is full of integrity, then let Helen Clark step forward and defend John Key or allow herself to be buried with him.

What is interesting about the event is that it really avoids the question that it was designed to raise - why people shouldn't vote for John Key. Of course, by association, people are supposed to wrote for the Internet-Mana Party, and their cohort of candidates, most of them anti-intellectual leftists. What was lost from this presentation was that:
1. Edward Snowden depicted himself as a libertarian in the traditions of John Locke. He spoke of natural rights inherent in human nature. He did not describe social rights bestowed by govts. For this reason his values belong to the ACT Party.
2. Julian Assange did not express any loyalty to Kim Dotcom, but he clearly shares a platform with him because they are both the subject of attempts at extradition. Assange is also a libertarian of sorts, but more confused than Snowden. There is no question he believes in accountable government, and may well gravitate to the ACT Party or the Internet-Mana Party.

The fact is that, given the controversy over John Key this week, and the perception that all of his 'conservative' pragmatic mates are 'in bed with Key', its possible that there could be a destabilising event in the National Party. These voters are unlikely to go to Labour. Some will go to the Greens, a lot will go to Colin Craig's Conservative Party (on issues of land ownership and TPPA) and NZ First (blatant nationalists). The Internet-Mana Party is simply a conduit for Kim Dotcom's vested interests. His candidates, other than Laila Harre are unlikely to poll well, and people won't want proxies for Kim Dotcom in government.

The fact is that the natural custodian of people's apprehensions in this issue are Dr Jamie Whyte and the ACT Party. ACT might agree to some extent with the National Party, and seek fiscal discipline, on the question of personal rights and law, the ACT Party stands closest to Edward Snowden. Jamie is a classical liberal, and is the embodiment of Edward Snowden's values. Julian Assange is more ambiguous, but he could go either way. Snowden even joked about the manner in which Assange had released a lot of information, so there could be an intellectual divide there.

The point is that:
1. Jamie Whyte of the ACT Party has the opportunity to seize the initiatie and not simply win a greater share of the party vote, he could actually be the only plausible leader in a minority coalition. You might wonder how that would be possible, but given the context, its possible he is the only plausible 'personality'. More likely however is Bill English. Business are far more enamoured with Bill English. In a recent CEO survey he polled 4.8/5.0, compared to 4.23 for John Key. Jamie was not even considered. Still, this is Jamie's opportunity to shine. Will he seize the initative?
2. John Key is probably going to resign after the election. On the one level, you might expect that he would welcome the opportunity to engage in positive policy with people, but I suspect he is over all the controversy that been dragged up of late. So Bill English would be the new leader.
3. Alex Salmond could plausibly seize upon this issue as just one more reason to shirk an association with Britain, given that Britain is one of the members of the Five Eyes Surveillance Program along with Canada, Australia, NZ and the United States. Salmond is howevera pragmatist like Key, so if there was any attempt to use the issue, you could be sure it would only be on the basis of a 'technicality'.

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

How long before civil war in Europe?

Share |

People, this is a good example of why Britain and the rest of Europe is doing to the dogs - by 'dogs' - I mean the collectivists on both sides - the Brits and the Muslim Brits. The dialogue in this video conveys a great deal of moral ambivalence. Let me demonstrate by quoting and commenting on their statements. Their contradictions lead them into positions neither side can defend....which means that, like in WWII we will end up with a European war where people don't know what they are fighting for. Consider that prior to WWII a great many of Europe's intellectuals and academics escaped to Britain and America and resulted in the socialisation of these countries, adopting the same time of polcies, i.e. The New Deal which they rejected from Germany before the war. This was of course the 'post-WWII emergency', the difference was, they never dropped the welfare state. Learn why history is destined to be repeated from this video.

Lucy: "Is is true that Muslim extremists are taking over my town"

What exactly is an extremist. I guess you could argue they are because they don't dress like you, and they were not born in Luton, or if they were, they have different values. In this video, we see her getting more aggressive than the Muslims, who are placating her. I would argue that this is an anti-intellectual spoilt brat who does not even understand the values of her own country. Let me demonstrate my point later.

Muslim loudspeaker: "Police go to hell"

Lucy says Muslims have a right to protest but they are going to extremes because they are critical of the police for abducting the wife of a terrorist suspect. I would however argue that these Muslims are far more civil than the labour unionists we have seen in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, in previous decades...I take it, that was the period in which she grew up at Luton. I would argue that Muslims and unionists have learned that aggression tends to alienate you...so few resort to such efforts today....at least for now. That will of course change.

So, based on this video, it seems Lucy is in fact getting in the face of Muslims because she has this sense of entitlement that 'she grew up in Luton'...though she does concede that they are people too.

Muslim loudspeaker: "UK go to hell"

Well, these are silly things to say because they will only alienate these Muslims from the majority. The problem is that you have this unthinking Brit (essentially a collectivist) repudiating the Muslim collectivism. The implication is that in ethics, they are actually more consistent than her, as they show in this dialogue:

Muslim loudspeaker: "Hands off Muslims"

That does not seem terribly threatening....mind you there is implicit racial superiority and judgement here. The issue however is - what is wrong with judging others? Apparently in Muslim, there is nothing wrong with it, and good for her, because this is the ultimate hypocrisy in Christianity, that you should not judge others.

Lucy: "Everyone has a right to protest, but I found their protesting provocative and extreme".

I don't know a country where protesting is not "provocate and extreme'; insofar as its the last straw that breaks the metaphoric 'Arab camel's back'.

Muslim lady: "This is a protest to stop oppression".

The Muslim makes the statement that she is their to fight oppression. What is wrong with that if she makes a valid position. The problem is that there is no issue here of 'a breach in the procedures of law', the issue is being raised in terms of collectives, them and us, and this is not the way to deal with the issue. It will ultimately lead to civil destruction. The Brits should no better; but because the Muslims are even bigger collectivists, they are going to drag Briton into a civil war.

Lucy says "no one should want anyone (ant police) to burn in hell".

Muslim lady says ".....because of what they have done"...."you either believe or you disbelieve"...."You choose to wear that and I choose to wear this".

You have the Muslim woman giving Lucy a lesson in individual rights; and yet both collectivise these rights or issues when it suits them. For the Muslim lady, the issue of rights is arbitrary, and so it is for Lucy.

Muslim lady says Lucy "looks naked...you are you trying to seduce".

Lucy: You shouldn't judge me....how I choose to dress"...."I don't judge you"

Muslim lady: "I am judging you".

Lucy: "Well, I don't judge you....because I'm above that".

Muslim lady: "Go put some clothes on".

Lucy: "You choose to dress like that, I choose to dress like this....don't start"

Lucy's early premise was that these Muslims are extremists; now she is saying she is above judgement. Early the Muslim was saying that values are subjective (I choose...you choose) and now Lucy is agreeing...values are subjective. The difference is Lucy is inconsistent. Everyone is morally compelled to make choices; that demands a standard of value, a standard of what constitutes the good, or bad. In this case, the standard is not clear, but they are arguing about who is 'provocative' in terms of politics, and on another issue, who is provocative in terms of dress.

This is ultimately a crisis of values, and the issue will deteriorate into war if we retain our system of representative democracy.

Lucy: "Do you think its fair that you should say that the police should burn in hell"

Muslim man: "Its freedom of speech so we can say what we say"

Lucy: "In Islam does it not say that you ought to respect the law of the land you live in"

Muslim man: "No it doesn't".

This is important because in the West we are raised with such silly conceptions as 'the rule of law'; whether that means due process, or respecting the law 'because no one is above the law'. This is not true; the Muslims have it right. The law serves the people; at least so long as its consistent. If its not, none of us are above the facts of reality, but the law is merely a person's interpretation of the reality. They are legitimately campaigning; that's freedom of speech. I have no idea whether there is an injustice here, and I suspect they have no idea either because their sense of injustice is 'collectivised' and its because of Brits like Lucy, but also the Arabs who see the American clergy burning a Koran (yes one man) and we are all infidels.

Muslim leader: "If the law of the land is Islamic, then we would respect the law of the land"

He then quotes the prophet Mohammed "I do not obey the disbelievers or the hypocrites". He has a point. Moral ambivalence is driving the West into a war with the Muslims.

Lucy: "That really hurts me to hear you say that because you don't really know me"

Muslim leader: "Its enough for me to know that you are not a Muslim".

This is where the dogmatism arises....you are a non-Muslim...so you are evil and not to be respected. This deeply expressed dogmatism is going to drive the Britain towards war. These people are bad for Britain and should be removed. When you consider 'rights', you need to understand that the precondition for rights are:

1. Ethics: Respect for personal sovereignty - this is not evident

2. Epistemology: Respect for rationality - this is not evident in the Muslim leader at the end. He is dangerous, and should be removed from Britain...along with Lucy...she learnt nothing abroad...she needs to go back to la-la-land.

3. Metaphysics - Respect for objectivity - this was repudiated by both parties on occasion with 'dress sense' and 'judgement'.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Racial prejudice attributed to Labor's Bob Katter MP

Share |

It seems there are a great many people being fooled by a hoax - at least on some level. There is a speech being passed around Australia which is attributed to Bob Katter MP, the sitting member for Kennedy in Queensland. Clearly people want to celebrate him as a beacon of nationalistic pride. On many levels he might represent nationalists, but he did not write the following speech - it was a plagiarism attributed to him according to this article.

We cannot however dismiss the speech simply because it was not written by an MP. More worrisome perhaps is that:

1. A person thought so much of it to propagate it

2. A great many other people thought so much of it to celebrate it, whether they posted it on their blog or pass it round as a chain email.

I think so little of it - that I'm going to repudiate its shallow premises. Firstly - the speech WRONGLY attributed to Bob Katter is:

“My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Boer War. My grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in World Wars 1&2. My grandfather watched as his friends & brothers died in the Depression of 32. My father watched as his friends died in Korea. I watched as my friends died in Vietnam, East Timor & Desert Storm. Our sons and daughters watched & bled as their friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq. None of them died for the Afghanistan and Iraq Flag. Every Australian died for the Australian flag.

At a Victorian high school foreign students raised a Middle East flag on a school flag pole. Australian students took it down. Guess who was expelled...the students who took it down.
West Australian high school students were sent home, because they wore T-shirts with the Australian flag printed on them.

Enough is enough.

This message needs to be viewed by every Australian; and every Australian needs to stand up for Australia. We've bent over to appease the Aussie-haters long enough. I'm taking a stand.

I'm standing up because of the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the Australian flag.

And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.

AUSTRALIANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS!

THIS IS OUR COUNTRY!

This statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration!

YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:

1. Get a sponsor!

2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!

3. Live by OUR rules! Dress as we Australians Do

4. Get a job!

5. Pay YOUR Taxes!

6. No Social Security until you have earned it and Paid for it!

7. NOW find a place to lay your head!

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

We've gone so far the other way...bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

Only AUSTRALIANS seem to care when Australian Citizens are being offended!

WAKE UP AUSTRALIA!!!

If you do not Pass this on, may your fingers cramp!

Made in AUSTRALIA & DAMN PROUD OF IT! AMEN

There are so many problems with this speech. Here is MY REPLY!!

Australians did not die for the Australian flag, the flag is just a symbol of the values embodied by (some of) the nation's people and its institutions. If you actually critically review those values, you realise how little has been learnt in the last 100 years in the realm of ethics and political philosophy. Go to your local war memorial and you often see the expression 'Service before self" or "They died for their country". This of course is the values of our past enemies - the Japanese and Germans. Consider the famed 'kamakasi' Japanese pilots - or a quote from Adolf Hitler 'You are nothing, your nation is everything".

You think you have more freedom today because you have a Bill of Rights. This is a facade, for if you realised that the govt has no interest in killing you, but in enslaving you, you'd realise that you have 'political rights' but no 'economic rights' (i.e. taxation is expropriation with no discretion). The reason they give you political rights is because now the majority have wealth, they are scared to lose. Two hundred years ago the majority had no wealth, that is they have nothing to lose but their lives. So, what did your grandpas die for? Political freedoms right? Well, far from living or dying for economic freedoms, every year you confront chronically deprave political values - yet every year you pony up - and vote for Labor (heads you lose), or Liberals (tails - you lose).

We might have won the battles in WWI & II, but we lost the war. In the wake of WWII, the West adopted the welfare state. Far from the enfranchisement of the poor, landless class being a development, it was a shift to a broader based of extortion, i.e. We diversified the foundation for extortion. The coalition of MPs into the 2 main parties is a framework for extortion. Ultimately however, it is representative democracy, and substitution of 'numbers' for 'reasons' that is destined to retain or entrenches the slavery system. Until you are treated as sovereign individuals with the right to choose the system which you join - you remain a slave. Impractical you say? That implies that you have no interest in accountability/reconciliation of ideas, or do not believe rationality, objectivity is possible. Might that be because you were never trained to think - only to memorise? Might it because you never had the discretion to make terribly profound philosophical choices; spared the responsibility by our political system. Spared the choice in the early years because you were not educated or wealthy enough; today for the sake of efficiency or harmony.

The article suggests Australians are giving away their rights by appeasing 'foreign values'. If such people actually understood their values, they would realise that the mindless, nationalism/collectivism (i.e. repudiation of self) is exactly the values celebrated in Australia by Christians, socialists and liberals. Christianity and Islam are very close in terms of their values; understandably so, since Islam was derived from Judaism as well. Islam might be a more violent expression; but that has more to do with the dynamics of ancient Europe and the Middle East.

Anyway, we have established that anyone who supports this guy is associating themselves with a 'school of thought' which embraces lying, nationalism, and possibly racial prejudice. Perhaps it was advanced by some white supremacist, nationalist political group who want to advance Katter as some great 'white hope'. Sadly, not the case.

So what are the rights under threat? The right to impose your values upon others, since there is an implied act of coercion. Or do they simply want to restrict who comes into their country. Well, I can understand that because there does need to be regulation of borders in the current context. But this guy is advancing a race-based distinction, as opposed to vetting people on the basis of their political motives for coming to Australia. He is also disparaging Arabs who came to Australia legitimately, and why not other races? Cheap populism to be sure.

The guy purports to impose rules on how to live, how to dress, and what language to speak! If I'm not mistaken, this guy would assimilate very well in Syria; unfortunately they don't want him either. It goes to show that nationalist bigots do not fit anywhere; which is probably why you find them mostly in rural areas, where they can be sure they have maximised the practicable distance between themselves. Basically his message is 'obey' his rules.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Tyranny in Cuba highlights despotism in the West

Share |

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Student detained for loathsome Facebook posts

Share |

In the United States, a student has been apprehended for posting vague messages of loathing society....the police responded. It does strike one as political correctness.

Preventing him going to that school is a decision the student ought to make - not the principal. He has not done anything wrong. He vented anger at the world. Who wouldn't when the world we live in is pretty poor. He deserves a Nobel Peace prize for identifying the hypocrisy or inherent contradictions in contemporary 'social values' at such a young age. If only every student could get such counselling....better still...if people actually realised 'the system' is stuffed. So what exactly is wrong with the system. Well here are some pointers:

1. Might makes right. Since the 1860s (Britain) perceptions have been more important than facts, i.e. Numbers more important than reasons or science. The implication is that sensible common law has become displaced by statutory law, which is inconsistent, so we need amendments to patch up contradictions, which creates loopholes, so you get this endless complexification of the law, which does not work because even the expert lawyers, accountants and so forth don't understand it, so you have to test the law in the courts, or get a ruling from the tax office. In conclusion, its arbitrary law, little better from when Hitler ruled Europe. That's right, the House of Lords & Commons were right to reject universal suffrage (democracy), but sadly they could conceive only of a false alternative (fascism/communist). Education was destroying people's minds back then as well. We needed a meritocracy, with reasons driving policies, not numbers. Reasons which are critiqued, rendered coherent by the smartest in society, not numbers which are extorted by vested interest groups or populists. Yes, we need a respect for objectivity. Even science today has turned into a popularity contest at the behest of governments. i.e. Climate change, monetary economics. The US started with sensible values....but democracy white-anted it. Democracy has also inhibited the development of the humanities....philosophy and psychology particularly.

2. Lack of accountability. The current system does not hold anyone accountable....most particularly politicians. The reason is that a 'two-party' democracy may as well be a single party autocracy. That is feeble competition when you know you are going to be elected by default in a bad system, able to be corrupt or get your chance at power. How hard do you think it would be for a politician to receive kickbacks into a Swiss bank account. Most of them are wealthy lawyers already. Ask yourself why Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is so loathed. Because bank workers will have a means to disclose the private bank details of corrupt politicians, as well as innocent taxpayers who ought not be forced to pay tax....why? That is my next point.

3. Coercion. People accept the myth that they have rights. You don't. They have a delusion of rights. Your political rights mean nothing in a modern specialised society where your material rights are everything. Without economic rights you are a slave to an unaccountable, wasteful, scornful (Wikileaks) or indifferent state. They will even use your tax contributions to keep you in your place, as an 'economic slave' serving their expedient and ill-conceived. Ill-conceived because they are not accountable for their policies. You triennial vote means nothing to you, and communicates little to them. They are middlemen, they are not statesmen with ideas. They know as much about public policy as your stockbroker knows about good investments. They are salemen making a buck living off your buck. You need statesmen the likes of Thomas Jefferson, but with even more integrity after 250 years of progress. Your system does not create them. This system loathes 'big picture', conceptualisers....it loves money, and spurns all ideas which does not create it TODAY!

We could go more fundamental than that, but that is the practical manifestation of your ideals! Think again.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Is the next Chinese leader Evil?

Share |

What might we come to expect from China's new government? Apparently they have already selected the next appointee - Xi Jinping, China’s current vice president. This leaves us wondering what type of China can we expect.

In this post I want to use some NY Times media article as the basis for my moral criticism of this new appointee. We might also ask why is the media so reluctant to engage in moral judgement...or is the problem that media journalists are just bad at it. I want to comment on some excerpts I have taken from this article:

“Nor was Mr. Xi untainted by corruption scandals. One party investigation into bribe-taking in Ningde and Fuzhou, publicized years after he left Fujian, toppled two former city leaders whom Mr. Xi had promoted”.

We therefore know that there is a strong correlation between this new appointee and corruption. Critics might argue that China has always had a great deal of corruption. The issue remains though that such a 'strong candidate' might be a particularly risky candidate from this perspective. Might it also pose a problem in terms of aiding his capacity to centralising power. We might also expect his style to herald a different approach. I would not be surprised to see a tempering of the political power (welcomed by the West), but also an escalation in the financial expropriation of corrupt government.

“Since joining the inner sanctum in Beijing, Mr. Xi has reinforced his longstanding posture as a team player. As president of the Central Party School, Mr. Xi recently made a priority of teaching political morality based on Marxist-Leninist and Maoist ideals, a resurgent trend in the bureaucracy”.

This quote suggests that there is still some sympathy for collectivism...so he is no advocate of capitalism. He has not simply preserved the status quo; he has reinforced the collectivist creed, regardless of whether its communism or fascism, its collectivism at heart. This highlights that China is veering in the wrong direction.

“He once told the American ambassador to China over dinner that he enjoyed Hollywood films about World War II because of the American sense of good and evil, according to diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks. He took a swipe at Zhang Yimou, the renowned Chinese director, saying some Chinese filmmakers neglect values they should promote”.

This is interesting because it invalidates his pragmatism, so he has a manipulative nature. He also expresses a strong coercive desire for power over people's values. This would of course be tempered by his pragmatism, however that is just a question of strategy. The implication is that the Chinese executive is supportive of a leader who is going to centralise power in coming years. He is also recognised as a very charismatic style of leader. Take note that his wife is a popular folk singer in China. So he is the style of leader who, unlike Putin, does not need to be taught charm, he has been faking it for years already.

This particular NY Times journalist suggests:

“His [Xi's] views of the West remain difficult to define”.

I don't think so. His style and values expressed by these comments suggest that he is a very dangerous and undesirable style of collectivist who is destined to centralise and affirm collectivist power in the Chinese executive. He displays signs of nationalism with racist overtones. There is not much evidence, but it is all consistently EVIL! Compare him to the former Japanese Prime Minister, Juniichi Koizumi, who also liked Hollywood movies. He I think liked the romance and charm of Hollywood movies, but this 'pragmatist' likes the schemes of 'good and evil'. He is a very dangerous man...and he chooses collectivism..That's evil. Anyway, he is probably going to bring civil war to China....but in all probability not for 2 decades yet...watch for a financial crisis ib China. It is some time off yet. The greatest fear though is that he will escalate nationalism and thus racial prejudice. Watch for those schemes. More importantly, the United States could actually play into his hands if it starts attacking China's policy over exchange rate regimes (i.e. calling for its deregulation) or if it engages in a trade war. This would of course allow the Chinese leader to deflect hostilities outwards. It is better to sell benefits behind the scenes.

If the United States escalated tensions with moral condemnation, where would China go? Probably nowhere. In fact, I think China would be worried about offending too many countries. Most particularly it will allow the leader to consolidate power and to simply be more corrupt than it already is. It will be power for the sake of money. I tend to think militarism is just a symbolic gesture these days. The nuclear age has pretty well placed major wars behind us.

The next question is whether he is an ardent nationalist. He made his remark:

“Some foreigners with full bellies and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us”.

This comment is not a compelling indicator of his nationalist values because it is in response to criticism. Certainly he is a collectivist, so we would expect a high level of national pride. It is a popular myth in China I would suggest that Westerners are indulgent, glutenous and decadent. Oh, who am I kidding...its all true for a great many of us...as the Chinese will be when they make a great deal of money.

He then makes the statement:

“First, China does not export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?”

We must however remember that he has a pragmatic, collectivist "ideology", so what is true today need not be true tomorrow. That is what defines a pragmatist - 'flexibility of ideals' - not a lack of ideals, which you might consider an 'indulgence' in itself.. hehe. Well, Chinese philosophy was never very good. Just a lot of coercive, pragmatic, Buddhist/Taoist crap. Give it time, Western 'scientific' reasoning will take hold. Hopefully it will be a better version that the crap accepted as scientific reasoning today in the West, with its emphasis on empiricism.

Can we take some comfort in the acknowledgement by Hu that China could improve its human rights record". This statement from NZ Herald:

"Hu delighted Obama with an admission that China's human rights need improvement".

This is as good as empty rhetoric because few Chinese people are going to hear it; anyone on the home turf is going to be oppressed if they act upon it, and ultimately they only need to maintain a gradual trend towards rights to attain some legitimacy from the West. More problematic is that the West does not have a good track record. Everyone celebrates human rights in the West, but what good are political rights if you have no economic rights. i.e. The tax office can seize money from your bank account....for the same reasons China does, i.e. for the 'common good'...for the same reasons that Hitler did.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the West should not push policy on China, however it should continue to maximise the integration of Western and Eastern values. Ultimately if Chinese power is going to be tempered, it is going to be by internal dissent. I would also suggest that the greatest influence upon China is going to be Western values on the future Chinese leadership. It is indeed a positive step then that the future leader's children are studying at Harvard. So long as the West continues to occupy a 'vacuous space of moral scepticism', we weaken the prospect of China choosing the 'right path', that being an objective path consonant with human nature, i.e. The facts of reality. i.e. Based on a correspondence and coherence test of truth. More concerning to me is that we are becoming more collectivist (i.e. moving towards China) by allowing the trumping of common law by arbitrary statutory law.

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