The best Republican nominee for 2012 Presidential Race

Share |

Based on this NY Times poll, Ron Paul appears to be the most popular nominee for the Republican presidential race. The lead nominees are:

1. Ron Paul (79.21%)

2. Rick Perry (9.19%)

3. Mitt Romney (8.25%)

4. Michele Bachmann (3.35%)

This is of course an online poll, so it remains to be seen whether this will translate into actual primary nominations. One suspects Ron Paul's lead is not so strong, as he was always an 'internet darling'

If I review the candidates, I am inclined to think that:

1. Ron Paul - Is probably the best candidate in term of values, i.e. He is a Baptist, but perhaps at least sufficiently pragmatic that his religious values pose no threat, since he chose to name his 3rd child 'Rand'. One could hope after Ayn Rand, but in fact he is unlikely to do her values justice if he professes to be a Baptist. He is a libertarian; with a penchant for disenfranching the Fed's monopoly over public financing. Given his historic criticism of US monetary policy, he would appear to be a front-runner for having the integrity and foresight to anticipate the problems. See Wikipedia.

2. Rick Perry - seems more of a Democrat than a Republican, and his values and governorship have raised questions. See Wikipedia.

3. Mitt Romney has a favourable history; though you would have to mark him down for potential mystical values, given his Mormon background. See Wikipedia.

4. Michele Bachmann believes in a Christian Constitution, so she is a classic deluded blueblood Conservative, so hopefully she will disappear as a candidate. See Wikipedia.

From this field, Ron Paul looks like the best nominee by a long distance; though I could live with Mitt Romney before I would fall on my sword. You might wonder why an Australian like myself would be so interested in US politics. There are two reasons:

1. By virtue of its great size - the US has a great impact on the global economy

2. Due to its greater stupidity - the US has a great impact on the global economy

We thus must come together to help Americans make better decisions; lest they sux the world into their mindless vortex.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Publications on liberty from Cato Institute

Share |

Here is a link to the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism.

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

Global democracies in moral crisis

Share |

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

1. A moral crisis

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

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

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

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Submission to NZ parliament on regulation

Share |

This is the submission I made to the NZ parliament on the 3rd August 2011. If I am assassinated or ignored, in lieu of any hope of influence, then it will be a belated funeral. Of course, I have little hope for their intellectual honesty, but I won't totally discount yours.

1. Arbitrary. The problem with regulation in all democracies is that it is arbitrary. There are basically two legal traditions - oh sorry, you are lawyers, you know this already. Oh, but you have no inkling for the fact that there are philosophical premises underpinning our laws, and that humanity has a nature (aka 'science'). That's right, you are lawyers, not scientists. That's ok, scientists don't have must respect for objectivity either. Just look at the scientific method with its reliance on empiricism. Surprisingly really, when you consider that induction entails deductive analytical investigation as to what constitutes a sample. But we have this silly dichotomy in science which is destined to leave you 'lawyers' confused. This is where the 2nd problem comes in.

2. Reconciliation. Your tradition of 'representative democracy' is not a basis for freedom, it is a basis for extortion. Might makes right. Scarcely does a majority get it right. I dare say there are probably only a few individuals who know as much (pertinent detail) as me, and yet you want to listen to the majority.

3. Nominal rights. Your nominal protection of rights is a pretense only. Notice how you only protect political rights. Why would you need to persecute people when you can enlist some 'rogue cop' to assassinate any threat. Or must I trust my govt on faith? You don't need political persecution so long as NZ is a relatively wealthy state, with a high degree of labour specialisation. Who could possible live without economic rights? You think there is a dichotomy between the material and the mind. You can have no intellectual or political rights without protection of property.

By sanctioning democracy, you are all criminals. Of course you can fool the majority, and if you are wondering why people are getting more stupid, its because they can't grasp what is wrong with your system, because your education system has screwed them up, not to mention yourself. Of course, you can argue you are just ignorant or insecure, but why then do you seek moral agency. I had to learn outside your system in order to understand the nature of it.

I suggest that now that I have drawn your attention to this point, you really have a fiduciary duty to rectify the problem, otherwise you will be guilty of extortion. That is a criminal offence.

4. Your statutory laws are actually destroying what is actually the relatively healthy aspects of the law - that is the common law tradition. Not perfect, but at least it implicitly has some cognitive validity. Healthy, because its actually contextual and logical. You think your laws are logical because you are engaged in debate. The majority has the day. That is force, coercion, that is arbitrary. If it reconciles with your more fundamental arbitrary laws, like your Bill of Rights, that is still arbitrary. Which is why judges struggle to interpret it.

5. Your impact on society. You are causing the decay of people's minds. You are enslaving people, and you do not even realise it. Death by a 1000 statutes. People have no need to think because you effectively exclude them from the political process. You think this is 'participation'. It depends on your honesty, respect for facts and intellectual health. I don't believe it, and your sanctioning of a system which repudiates reason as the standard of value affirms your moral ambivalence. You are not accountable for anything I ask, or anything you say 'effectively', thus your 'representative' democracy is a sham that fools uneducated, apathetic minds (i.e. the majority), who have shown their disdain for your system. This system has caused a great deal of mental illness, apart from being a huge opportunity cost. It starts with psychological repression, manifests in apathy, anger, anxiety, depression.

6. Philosophy. As long as you repudiate the role of 'good philosophy' along with the crap produced by academia, who are paid whether they produce or not, you will have no insights, and you will take us into an intellectual mini-Dark Ages. Fortunately, the internet will achieve the political revolution I want.

You might want to rethink military action abroad - the democratic franchise is dying! It ought not be encouraged.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australia govt requires drivers licence for lawn mowers

Share |

Australian drivers of lawn mowers will be required to obtain a driver's license and dog walkers will be required to obtain a walking permit under new regulations by the Australian Labor government. These progressive measures are considered enlightened social policy in the era of permanent recession. i.e. Well as permanent as any policy can be until the next loophole or fiscal or monetary stimulus.

Corporations are already talking about renaming the 'dogs' tigers, and more progressive companies are looking at genetic mutations of the dog with no teeth. Lawn mower makers are expected to follow suit, with pedal-powered mowers. The justification for the policy was the death of a youth after an old man drove over his grandson.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The end of the Labor Party and independent MPs

Share |

I give the independent MPs in the Labor Party of Australia coalition one month to leave Labor and precipitate a change in govt, or see their role in parliament disappear at the next election. This issue with the Philip Morris is destined to be hugely embarrassing. It highlights the risk to Australian taxpayers that arises from free trade agreements.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The Ombudsman is not effective - just good publicity

Share |

The Financial Services Ombudsman was established to keep practitioners of financial services honest and accountable. According to the SMH Online, the FSO processed 23,790 complaints and resolved 90% of them. The problem of course is that when the Sydney Morning Herald says that the FSO resolved 90% of the complaints, it means that most people simply gave up trying to get any notion of justice. How can this occur? Well, there are several reasons:

1. The media are not interested in performing any investigating journalism; instead they simply take the claims of the FSO at face value. i.e. They receive a press release from the FSO, and within 30 minutes they have rewitten it into 'quality journalism'.

2. The FSO have no interest in solving problems...they are more interested in being perceived as solving problems. i.e. They really have no sense of their public profile. They perform no customer satisfaction surveys. They instead rely on their own internal statistics...which of course look impression 'on paper'.

The reality is far from the truth...so let me explain because I have been through the process:

1. The FSO is aware of the limits of government and does only what it can do. Problems outside of its control which relate to the nature of democracy are discarded by them or you as complainants.

2. The FSO only investigates whether the complainant has been injured under law. It does not challenge the veracity of the law. It can recommend changes to law, but normally this would be a revision to prevent abuse; not a recommendation for a new law which might imply that the banks are acting improperly. i.e. unethically, but legally. Sadly there is a difference.

3. The banks are only concerned with ensuring that they are acting in accordance with the law. Unfortunately its a low hurdle because they can resort to all manner of loopholes; because of the arbitrary nature of our legal system.

4. The FSO is underfunded...so don't expect it to take on two many cases. The problem for the FSO is that it can do, or does very little because of its limited budget. Basically its a post office boz which redirects complaints to pertinent departments, et al. i.e. Then you get a letter from them to tell you...they cannot do anything because the bank acted within the industry guidelines. You give up in frustration. Problem resolved. FSO 1 point, team complaints 'zero'.

The results look impressive from the perspective of government and the industry. The reality is not however the perceptions we have been lead to accept. You are being conned by a government that could care less; which only wants to avoid issues. They have no respect for facts. This is what you buy into when you sanction democracy. You are living in a tyranny; and you surrender your cash through the cowardly 'indirect' tax system because few people will honestly state that they no longer both to lodge a tax return, or that they stack it with deductions so that they effectively tax no tax. The salaryman with no deductions is a slave because the tax is taken out of their pocket. The role of corporations is to create the perception that they pay tax. The government has no interest in placing you in prison...its intent is to scare you into submission, and the business world helps them. i.e. The media helps them. Every tax season the Murdoch press scares you into submission by telling you 'the ATO is cracking down on capital gains tax this year'....blurrrhhh.....yawn...who cares. You are mad if you pay tax under this form of political regime....at least voluntarily. The GST probably represents about as much tax as anyone ought to pay...and I impose no expectancy on you because its their responsibility to justify such an assertion. Extorting you into voting for some collectivist regime, with two-party non-competition is not what I mean. I mean a negotiated or participatory system. Too inefficient? Too bad! When you want my money...you put forward a reasonable proposal. I retain my sovereign right to do with my money as I want. I am only open to rational arguments...not extortion.

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