Private & public evasion – a hint of double standards

Share |

Integrity in government has long been a dream of mine, but nothing highlights my political rage more than blatant hypocrisy. We see this most clearly in the policies of the Howard government. Hear are several examples:
In response to the James Hardie asbestos scandal, the Federal Government is considering introducing a 10-year jail term for company restructures deliberately aimed at avoiding personal injury compensation. This is fine, but what about the gross evasions of government. Eg. Maralinga nuclear toll, stolen generation, and other public instances of evading public compensation.
The government has tightened rules under the Corporations Law to protect shareholders from dubious executive practices, but there what about the reoccurring incidences of tax evasion and fraud perpetrated by politicians over the years, with no law to discourage them.
Its great that accountability is being adopted, but why now, and why not universally. It stinks of political opportunism, and worse still, the draft bill is so weakly worded to be toothless for the following reasons:
Intentional avoidance could be difficult for prosecutors to prove in court
The bill applies to actions where "where an exceptional number of personal injury claims have arisen out of a company's action or product, and more claims of that nature are expected".
The bill would not apply if the extent of the future liability can be 'reasonably estimated'."
Under current law, claimants for injuries with long latency periods such as asbestos diseases (which takes decades to develop) miss out on a share of winding-up proceeds. It is proposed that liquidators should recognise these latent claims by establishing a trust fund based on actuarial assessments.
News Source: SMH.
-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.

Need for greater public disclosure

Share |

In 2004, the US government & Congress passed measures or guidelines requiring private enterprise to adopt greater levels of disclosure, as well as tightening its capacity to act contrary to the interests of shareholders. The laws were intended to restore confidence to markets who were questioning the legitimacy of the profits earned by some of America's largest companies. The collapse of 2 'giants' - Enron and Worldcom suggested that this was no 'one-off'. On top of those breaches of public trust, the 'Big 5' accounting firms were called into question for conflicts of interest between their auditing and accounting activities. Apart from the presence of fidiciary duty, there was a clear need here to 'appear judicious', yet none of the 5 accounting firms thought it necessary to do that. That saids alot about business ethics....but it also saids something about community standards of prudential supervision that no one sought to break up these conflicting responsibilities. Clearly the reason is that the only people served by greater accountability would be shareholders, but they have no power. Even fund managers - as custodians of shareholders money - have little interest in redressing these issues since they get their margin anyway, and in fact collapses create buying opportunities if they are competent enough to pick the frauds. But shouldn't shareholders reasonably be able to access the information that fund managers have access to? Shouldn't corporate executives be obliged to release information to the market in a timely and honest fashion. I'm willing to bet the protective measures adopted by government will do nothing to change accounting standards in future. But my concern here is not corporate accountability, but public accountability. Whilst the politicians are busy adopting higher standards of corporate disclosure, accountability and compliance, where are the measures to ensure the same level of scrutiny of public enterprises.

Consider the following areas:

1. Campaign donations: There is a huge conflict of interest between party contributions and public benefits for corporations.
2. Treasury operations: The operation of the treasury and central bank are critical to any country, but often their activities are not open to scrutiny because of high levels of confidentiality. Voters should have a right to know the legitimacy of their currency. Consider that the Federal Reserve is not required to disclose its gold transactions. See Cleveland Regional Central Bank advice.
3. Collusion: Why is the government beyond question over the integrity of its policy platform. Clearly opposition parties are not up to the task. This however speaks to the failings of the adversarial-style of party democracy. The problem is that centralisation of power always corrupts because vested interests can collude, and in the process entrench their political power. The question might be asked? Are oppositions incompetent or just complicit? I would suggest both depending on the issue.

-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Solving economic problems

Share |

The topic for this essay may sound very alarmist.... I'm talking about problems at a time when the global economies are booming. Housing prices and equities have never been so good, we have full employment and the poor nations of the world are growing. But how real is it.

In the wake of the internet bubble - Americans might have been asking that exact question. In the bear market that followed, critics were panning corporate executives that had conspired to defraud shareholders of wealth, employees of jobs and security for the sake of personal gain. A few executives have been found guilty under the Corporations Law in several countries. The Worldcom, Enron cases in the USA, Parmalat in Italy and HIH Insurance in Australia are testimony to the fact that its a global problem. The problem being global in its extent.

The governments in many countries have responded to calls to reign in such dubious accounting & management practices as they always promise to do, but executives always find new ways to evade such laws. It comes as no surprise that dubious conduct is often lawful, that executives in concert with their lawyers are often able to find 'technically' legal ways of evading the law. We must remember that the law and morality are not the same, though one might question why? Pragmatism is the short answer. Those people that write laws only do so to protect their own interests. It is therefore dangerous for voters to narrow their focus to their immediate self-interest, lest they suffer the repercussions of illegitimate acts by others.

Unquestionably the greatest threat posed to a society is by the agency that professes to represent them - the government. In the name of the 'common good', governments have rationalised a great many 'technically legal' breaches of morality for the sake of protecting their own interests, ie. Affirming their own power or popularity. Hitler, Lenin and Stalin are perhaps extreme examples, but less grandiose breaches of morality occur today, but since they don't attract the concern of the populace, they are marginalised and their impacts desensitised. People are no longer defenders of principles, because they no longer see principles as serving them. Consider that holding principles today is tantimony to holding contradictions. But rather than checking their premises, people are prone to discount their knowledge and resign themselves to the 'common good', choosing the 'safe mode' and going with the consensus. The manifestation of consensus thinking is entrenched vested interests and lower standards (expectations) of value. The implication is an erosion of principles and accountability, and a wider sense of disillusionment and cynicism.

Consider that in response to the corporate failures the government decides to increase accountability and establish new guidelines for corporate reporting. That's fine. But such practices have been going on for decades, and guidelines are endlessly side-stepped because they are arbitrary rather than based on principle. Arbitrary laws or guidelines are dogma that apply only within a narrow context. Only principles are contextual, and can be countered to prevent executives from side-stepping breaches. The reason that principles are not adopted as legally sanctioned guidelines is that - by implication - they would be universal. They would need to apply to government as much as corporate executives.

One need only look at the double-standard evident in the global society today - whether we are talking about Australia, the US, Britain or China. Laws are applied to the general citizenry with little restraint, but government officials are relatively free from such double standards. The governments of western governments in the wake of the Enron & Worldcom scandals have moved to improve accounting standards and to tighten disclosure regulations.... but look at the public accounts for governments. Not only are the acounts incomplete, often meaningless, unaudited, but they are often confidential or not collected. The government is without a doubt the most important organisation in every country, representing 15-35% of the each economy, yet they are surprisingly free from public scrutiny. There is no better evidence than this that the public's interest is not being protected, and that public officials are acting contrary to those whom they represent. An honourable representative does not ask for the trust of their supporters, and nor does he countenance it.

The governments of each most countries are guilty of perhaps the greatest crime that can be perpetrated against its people - the blatant & mass expropriation of wealth. For years they have done it by sanction of a 'cynical & unprincipled majority', but they have also perpetrated such breaches by stealth - though the 'theft of inflation'. It is a nonsense that western nations have not experienced inflation as any investigation of price levels will demonstrate. Western governments and their bureaucrats are party to the biggest, self-serving fraud ever perpetrated against productive people. Paradoxically, the theft is being perpetrated by 'doctoring the books', by using accounting and limitations on disclosure to conceal the facts from the general public.

This is not so much a mass 'conspiracy' as a mass evasion. Mostly its honest people just sticking to what they know, and being reluctant to get involved something so grand they could never resolve it. Its easier not to know the facts, easier to lower your expectations, easier to just pay up. Justice gives way to molevolence. "Who am I to question" is the answer to a question they never ask, to a question they don't want to hear.

People look at corrupt third world markets and think they are so backward. But the reality is that they western world is backward too, just less so. Its only 1st world by default. Like third world countries, people sanction corruption in their society by default, by not questioning the integrity of their institutions, by remaning passive. Decadence is as much a curse as poverty, for it is the institutional safeguards that make any society what it is - and can potentially undermine it. The integrity of western institutional stability is being undermined by the largesse and ineptitude of western governments. They are not conspiring in an act of self-interest, rather as an act of fear......the fear of being powerless or irrelevant.

Governments have the greatest power possible to mankind - the power of the moral sanction over other humans, the power to override his identity and righteous for the 'common good'. That is a considerable responsibility, and a dangerous capacity when that power is welded by unprincipled people. It is through its monopoly of the right of moral sanction that governments are able to tax, print money and sanction other organisations through state-backed sancitioning. That sanction is only as safe as the capacity of taxpayers to finance any resulting liability. The power comes down to the governments ability to raise money. That is a debt western governments are fully willing to abuse, and its a level of trust the public can scarcely afford to extend. There is not just the possibility of ineptitude and deception, its a forgone conclusion if history is any guide. There has never been a monetary standard which has not been corrupted by governments over hundreds of years.

Governments are able to achieve their deception through structuring the economy in a way that serves them. They need their allies to achieve their ends. Politicians count on 4 parties to preserve their self-interest. These are:

1. Private Bankers: The banks are among the biggest beneficiaries of the public abuse of money. In the old days bank executives were able to cash in their shares prior to bank failures. In the advent of derivatives, banks need only off-load risky assets to third parties, paradoxically mutual funds managing household savings. Private bankers can get very rich in the process.
2. Central Bankers: Central bankers have a different goal. By financing western governments expenditure, they are able to expand their job market, incomes and thus benefit from not just a richer treasury, but also an entrenched hold on government, not to mention considerable notoriety.
3. Bureaucrats: The role of the bureaucrats is to make the government look good. Ministers are very careful about the type of public 'servants' they employ. They don't want recalcitrants, rather safe, subservient minorities who do as their told. Of course such loyalty doesn't come without a price - the price being life-time employment, generous retirement packages and tax benefits.
4. Military & police: The military and police can be important for preserving government's power. As agents of justice, they hold considerable moral power, despite the fact that many police forces are tainted by accusations of corruption. Police forces go to considerable trouble to dispell those concerns, to downplay the extent of the trouble. But consider the facts: The police and military are secretive, open only to self-scrutiny and are well-paid.
5. Big business: Corporate executives are another favoured party of politicians for several reasons - but fundamentally they have the capacity to make governments look good. Consider how. Executives create jobs that would otherwise go to another country, they have the credibility or prestige of belonging to a more impressive institution (read 'commercially profitable'), as well as the power to retrench and go home. This is why business is beholden to 'big business'. Big business also has the capacity to spend their way through recessions, whether on capital investment or on political campaign donations. Thats why it takes considerable pressure ('public opinion') for governments to act against public opinion. Rest assured that when they do, the laws they enact will be 'toothless', in as much as they will make little difference. In fact, often those laws are designed to fail, as they need to countenance vested interests. Big business acts through industry representation with a powerful capacity to serve their own interests. Clearly the most powerful interest group is the media. More dangerous still is a media with a large market share.

If these are the vested interests, then the question has to be asked, who are the sacrificial lambs. There are 3 types:

1. PAYE Salary Workers: The contemporary salaryman is the hardest worker but gets the least benefit. They are often under-paid, get few tax deductions and pay tax up-front.
2. Small business: Small business is cherished for its autonomy, but its alot of work. Ever wondered why they struggle to get government to remove excess red-tape? Its because politically they don't matter. They often go out of business, rarely make campaign contributions and they don't employ a great many people workers. They are staunchly independent, so they are politically poorly organised. Farmers are perhaps the most powerful lobby group in many countries because many city folk retain a 'rural identity' or sympathy, but otherwise farming is of declining importance in most countries, and its power is quickly being eroded by big business interests as they consolidate productive capacity. Big business (including big farmers) are better connected and organised than 'small farm' lobbyists.
3. Unskilled workers: Unskilled factory workers have historically been very powerful because they were organised into unions, manufacturing was an important income earner, and they were effective in harnessing community sympathy. That was before 'unskilled' jobs moved offshore to developing countries and unskilled workers moved into service industries. That loss of power saw big business break the unions through government legislation. The unionists deserved it because they were hedonistic in their demands.

The last 3 vested interest groups are likely feeling pretty secure after record rises in property prices and tax cuts prior to the last election, but consider this - the good times will not roll endlessly. The current boom is not sustainable, but is the result of public largesse. The greatest culprit in these 'money illusion' stakes are the Federal Reserve Board (USA), the US government, and their counterparties in China, Britain and Australia. Really any central banker should know better, but people don't like to be critics. But eventually when the credibility of these institutions comes into doubt, there will be alot of criticism. The encumbent governments will loose power for a decade, but nothing will change, irrespective of how much soul-searching will be done.

But these last 3 vested interest groups represent the best opportunity for greater accountability in our public enterprises. Why? Because they have good reason to be frustrated and because they represent the bulk of any population, albeit they are important only is so far as they raise their expectations, have a representative body to unite them, they are able to articulate a clear message, and are able to gain support among other competing interest groups. Clearly they have to change their tact.

Their greatest opportunity lies in identifying the future fallibility of this bubble economy before it happens. There will eventually be a collapse in housing prices in the USA, Britain, Australia and China, which will likely be precipitated by high oil prices. High oil prices are blamed for 90% of the recessions this century, but the truth is - they are just the symptom of the underlying problem - a lack of accountability in public administration. We can go further and identify the structure of modern democracy as the problem. Irrespective, those public administrators and politicians that are supposed to earn our trust, are in contempt. How can they defend such a gross contradiction? How can they reasonably apply increased disclosure upon executives of private enterprises, whilst ignoring public administration. Its not so long ago that public adminstrators were breaching public confidence. eg. The Pyramid Building Society in Victoria, Australia, as well as FEMA in the USA (of Hurricane Katrina fame). Where is the accountability? The absence of accountability points to a deeper flaw in our political system. The answer is not that these 'forgotten' poorly represented vested interest groups expand their influence at the expense of other groups, rather that 'reason is the standard' - not political pull. That is the subversion that needs to be avoided.
-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.

- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The morality of corporate compliance

Share |

Western corporations operating in the third world often face a conflict of values in carrying out business. Examples include the following:

1. Congo: Anvil Mining complies with a government request to transport troops, despite the dubious morality of the action.
2. Myanmar: Some French companies have sought to explore for oil in Myanmar despite the military junta in power violating the rights of its people.
3. China: Yahoo and Microsoft have censored words like "democracy" and "Dalai Lama" from the Chinese version of their blogging software.

There is no argument that in these countries that the freedoms that we take for granted in the west only partially exist or don't exist at all. The question is - Are corporate executives obliged to act by western moral or legal standards in foreign markets? The answer is - No! Even where there is no threat to life. It would be understandable if executives complied with the existing government directives if company life or property was threatened. But in the case of Anvil, it provided vehicles which allowed the government to apprehend suspects. If a government is so reprehensible, then the western government should prohibit western companies from dealing in these markets in a way that benefits that nation's interests.

What are the practical benefits of sanctions?

Western governments have been applying sanctions for years with dubious results. Sanctions applied to Myanmar have denied local people of prosperity and forced those countries into the illegal drug trade. Part of the problem is that these sanctions are applied at a time when these countries have no money to buy foreign goods. Also its pointless to apply western standards of morality when they are not supported by the citizens of the country. Part of the reason that statist regimes exist is that the population has no better idea than government. Tyranny is part of their way of life, and they are just as prone to support the efforts of one tyrant to replace the encumbent. By preventing trade with these countries we are likely denying the local population the opportunity to develop their own defense:

1. Commerce allows the flow of ideas, evolution of higher standards or expectations by way of comparison with the westerners they interact with, and thus facilitating personal growth. The Burmese nationals need to get their understanding from westerners because they will not get it from their government.
2. Commerce can finance government,

What if the proceeds of commerce are expropriated by statist governments? The reality is that western governments similar expropriate wealth from their citizens, so there is nothing new about that. Its not valid that cutting off their source of tax revenues will actually help Burmese nationals, or move the country towards democracy. On the contrary, a statist regime lacking external finance will be inclined to be more repressive, and seek to finance itself in more desperate ways. It can only increase the extent of repression.

The reason that western governments don't want to support tyrannies is that prospect that they might pose a greater danger by virtue of gaining more power. This can occur because:

1. They develop or acquire nuclear weapons
2. They resort to drug cultivation to finance their administration
3. They engage in mass murder of citizens

Statist regimes pose other problems as well:

1. Politicians feel compelled to do something about the callous deaths of people in these countries
2. Politicians are reluctant to engage in military action unless there is a clear defence or commercial benefit
3. Politicians are more likely to take action if there is a refugee displacement issue, eg. Refugees washing up on their shores.
4. Politicians are more likely to take action if there is a local ethnic community in the western nation fighting for the welfare of their fellow citizens

The reality is that no country becomes a democracy overnight. It took the West 400 years to achieve their current values - and they are far from perfect. It is a little precious to expect the third world to embrace democracy overnight when it tries to force democracy upon them. You cannot expect to establish a stable democracy if there is no respect for rule of law. Respected or feared leaders are a precursor therefore to democracy.

Its compelling for the west to support 'liberty' campaigners, but the values of these zeolots do not embody the values of the general populous. Opposition needs to be repressed before it can be encouraged to grow. As long as the people's expectations are higher than those of government, it will factionalise the population. Repression tempers demands.

Western democracies tend to hold democracy on a pedestal - but democracy is not necessarily a value. It is itself still collectivist - in the sense that it makes little difference if your government has a 25% or 75% popularity if they are acting immorally. Reason is ultimately the standard that needs to apply, and whilst it cannot be forced, it needs to be encouraged. Nothing grows without first creating the right environment. Its noteworthy that it was British (and other imperialists like Germany & France) that established the tradition of repression and authoritarian government in these countries. These imperialists repressed local opposition for the sake of securing their colonial trade and military interests. The Burmese junta has done the same. Unlike Britain - they are holding no political contradiction, but they are holding a more fundamental contradiction - the belief that there is any efficacy in repressing personal liberty.

-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The achievements of George Bush

Share |

George Bush is by no means the least popular president in US history. Strangely the President is very popular
in his own country, but not so outside it. His popularity stems from:

1. Communicating a simple message which evokes the shared Christian values of the electorate
2. Values-driven: The President has steadfastily dealt with issues that other presidents would often walk away from.
3. Leadership: He has been able to lead on a number of issues. eg. Free trade, third world debt relief, anti-terrorism

His unpopularity stems from several issues:

1. Mismanagement of political crisis and natural disasters reflected poorly on him as leader - or at least on his capacity to delegate effectively. eg. Hurricane Katrina & the Iraqi War
2. Lack of strategic direction - There did not seem to be a strategy in place for Hurricane Katrina or the Iraqi War
3. Financial mismanagement: Under George Bush the US public and private debt burden has blown out

Perhaps the greatest legacy of the US administration under President George Bush Jr will be his efforts to:

1. End the debt spiral for 28 of the poorest global economies
2. Fighting terrorism
3. Contributing to the freeing up of trade - this remains work in progress

Some of the credit for this progress - primarily the free trade agenda - should go to the media, whose journalists have supported this. They have been better advocates of complex intellectuals more so than Bush, who hasd fumbled in his message.

Third World Debt Spiral

The US government is urging the G8 Group of Nations to carry 70.2% of the debt relief program that would remove the $US42.5 billion debt from the world’s 38 most heavily-indebted countries. Most of the debtors are located in Africa, with their debts owed to the World Bank and other agencies. This is an important issue because debt repayments are a considerable annual burden on these countries. It seems likely that these governments will need to adopt some conditions if these debts are to disappear. Research??

Trade Reform
Bush has made a pledge to abolish tariff and farm subsidies that distort international trade, but only if other rich nations join him. France is likely to reject the ‘opportunity’. Bush has argued that terrorists have fed on the anger & resentment towards the West for preserving such policies. But really there is more to it than that. The WTO Accord reached in late 2001 achieved trade liberalisation, but the agreement exempted agriculture to ensure a consensus would be reached. While the US is trying to get Japan & the EU to join his pledge, the Bush administration has opposed sugar imports and retained subsidies. The WTO also ruled that its cotton programs cited by Brazil breached guidelines. Regardless a lot of US grain farmers are already successfully competing in global markets.

As far as rhetoric is concerned, John Howard has done more to progress global free trade, since Australia has liberalised markets in key markets which will prove the viability of opening trade without decimating farming sectors. This progress will provide the evidence for other countries to go further. Australia has reached FTAs with Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Thailand and the USA, and is working on similar agreements with Japan and China. Australia of course has the benefit of being a small market, offers disease-free agricultural product markets and less competitiveness than the Third World liberalisation. These FTAs could then be a precursor for more or less free trade.

-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The benefits of 'real' tax cuts

Share |

Indonesian President Sasilo Bambang Yudhoyono has pledged to reduce corporate and personal tax rates to stimulate higher levels of investment. The Indonesian president has recognised the contribution that tax cuts have made to some of the emerging growth economies such as:

1. Turkey has achieved real economic growth of 7% between 1985-89 and 9% in 1990 after lowering the lowest marginal tax rate from 40% to 25%, and the top marginal tax rate from 75% to 50%.
2. South Korea recorded growth of 9.3% between 1981-89 are adopting tax cuts and expanding the range of tax deductions.
3. Ireland was the fastest growing member of the OECD in the 1990s after it reduced taxes

Some tax cuts are more real than others. Consider that the US government offered tax cuts but neglected to cut spending, in the process burdening the country with a large public deficit running at 6% of GDP annually. The Australian government’s tax cuts made little contribution to the economy since they merely gave back to private citizens what inflation-inspired ‘bracket creep’ had taken from rises in nominal income. In contrast to the real gains made in the Turkish & Irish economies, the expansion in the US and Australian economies was the result of easy monetary policy and cannot be sustained.

The argument then should be - if tax cuts are a burden on economies - why not replace them with user-pay fees on services provided by governments, and allow citizens the choice as to whether they need them. Who could argue with that policy if they are so critical 'public goods'.

Postscript:
The facts for this article were derived from the Japan Times, though I’ve taken it upon myself to present the article in a better context. The original article suggested tax cuts are always good….an over-simplification.

-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon http://www.sheldonthinks.com/

Fascists in Western Democracies

Share |

When people speak of fascism their mind goes back to Hitler and racial tyranny and instances of invasion by one country by another. These are not events that we attribute to 'modern' western democracies. There are no doubt peace activists who might criticise Bush & Blair for being rogue militarists, but what undermines these critics is that they share the same ideological roots as those they criticise. They are in fact the opposite side of the same collectivist coin. Just as its reprehensible to violate the rights other other people (or countries), its equally reprehensible not to defend your own rights, or those of your nation. They are the pertinent values, but are they being meaningfully applied in this context.

The problem is that standards for civilisation are set by the modern democracies. Tyranny grabs hold of the small pockets of the world that western nations are not interested in. By default neglected countries become hostile ones.

The US has demonstrated its capacity for turning around markets. eg. Consider the role of the US in making Japan possible. Japan, and to a lesser example HK and Singapore, were Asian countries that learned by example. South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia saw the success in Japan and wanted a piece of it. The same lead was provided in South America by Chile. Is there an opportunity to establish a similar precedent in Africa? Perhaps that is Ghana...but there are no stand-outs. There are several countries doing well.

The problem with this 'leading by example' was that it was based on a pragmatic desire to catch up to the western by a narrow economic measure. If one looks at Japan, its a hollow victory when you consider the way in which the society is structured to sacrifice the interests of the individual to those of the government and corporations. There is a hierarchy and salarymen and housewives are at the bottom. This hierarchy extends pervasively through the whole of society, whereas in western nations its a concession made by voters who begrudgingly accept their middle class guilt. It does not permeate all of our time. We are for the most part concerned with our own lives even if we rationalise otherwise. That does not mean what we pursue is necessarily in our interests. In nations where values are considered subjective, its inevitable that people would slip up in any of the following respects - by not acting in their self interests because:

1. Failing to understand the nature as a human being, eg. What they accept as their cognitive tools, eg. They might regard emotions as equally valid as a cognitive tool as rational theory, or they might accept evasion or decoupling from negative thoughts as acceptable, and to this end they can be supported by peers, with a similar interest (set of values)
2. Hierarchy of values distorted by negative life experiences
3. Priorities that reflect a distorted sense of life, eg. A sense of scarcity rather than abundance
4. Poor definition of values, wich undermines their integrity

All these issues are important because they are the foundation upon which fascism is based. Hitler was not created in a day, and he did not exist in a vacuum. He was the product of German philosophical thought that permeated that culture during the 1800s, with intellectual influences like Hegel and Immanuel Kant, which undermined the efficacy of reason as a tool of cognition, and elevating passions, emotions and its corresponding ethics of self-sacrifice.

Looking at society today, these 'dangerous' foundations are evident in our society. There is no conspiracy to introduce socialism or any variant, the political direction of any economy is just people acting as they please, often with little thought to where they are going. The dangerous signs are evident when you analyse events, so lets consider the following in Australia.

Roots of collectivism in Australia

Australia was established as a colony in 1788. From the beginning prosperity did not come easily since the colonies struggled to introduce crops that would grow under the conditions. These hardships necessitated that public-funded governments would carry the burden. Australia was not as fertile or well-plenished with water as the New World (USA) and certainly Australia did not have the early successes with tobacco, cotton and sugar that the USA had. Moveover the hardship in the USA was carried by African slaves, not as with predominately free settlers in Australia. More importantly, the US was established largely in opposition to the tyranny of British monarchy, whereas Australia embraced it. The US had alot easier path to developing export markets with Europe, whereas Australia was far more remote. These early experiences entrenched the values of the 'nanny state' taking care of the citizenry.

Eventually prosperity came because Australia found a niche supplying the Old World

So what have we learned in the modern era. Well by default, the Conservatives in Australian politics have been able to stear the economy towards liberalisation - a global trend stimulated by Margaret Thatcher in the modern era, but really it was purely pragmatic benefits of wealth creation that gave it the momentum, and its been an 'alliance by stealth' between governments, the media and 'big business' representatives that has entrenched this trench, but purely for self-serving objectives. By delivering on wealth creation for those that mattered - big business since their investments determine where jobs are created, incomes are boosted and spending is undertaken. That has brought prosperity, but not without victims.

TALK ABOUT JOHN HOWARD - peace activist deported, Pauline Hanson, political processes, emergency powers

But lets not forget our own ethical principles whilst we are sending troops to the Middle East to defend theirs. Why are we fighting there? Why defend values without explaining why you are there, without providing any explanation. At the same time the Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock has deported the American peace activist Scott Parkin, of Houston, Texas because he participated in a recent protest against US energy company Halliburton, whose commercial interests benefit some members of the US executive. He has not committed a crime, and what risk does he pose by opposing war or highlighting threats to good government. This is on top of the arrest of Pauline Hanson.

Not finished

-----------------------------------
Reason is the standard for debate.
- Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com