Its not guns stupid!

Share |

It is not just politicians who are missing the bigger picture, it is the moral relativists, who think the attempted assassination of Senator Giffords was just a madman running around with a gun he should not have. The reality is that there are people who are sensitive about their rights, and there are among those, some who are morally ambivalent about how to express their rights...or to recoup them, where they sense they are lost. We go to war to reclaim rights lost; for some, killing a senator might be a logical extension of that principle. i.e. Those who spurn rights cannot then persecute a person for not acknowledging theirs. Frankly, I don't think his actions are going to help anyone. Even political uprisings in Tunisia are not going to shine a light on the lack of freedom in the West. Most people are living under the delusion that political rights mean something when you lack economic rights (i.e. freedom from tax expropriation). Its funny how globally governments passed up the opportunity to recognise that right. Instead they went the other way and abused it, with the 'New Deal' of Roosevelt in the post-WWII era. Apparently there is still a global reconstruction emergency going on because government spending seldom goes south for the winter.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The myth of sweat shops

Share |

If you read the HeraldSun, you will hear a beat up of 'sweat shops' being run in Melbourne, as opposed to China. Such stories are always a perversion of the truth. Here are the reasons why?

1. Chinese sweat shops are the result of the inevitable collapse of socialism, that created a Chinese under-valuing of labour that had global structural implications. Because of the restrictions on the movement of people, Chinese people are taking any opportunity they can get to join the capitalist market. Capitalism will correct the structural distortion of socialism quicker than any other system of government...it left alone. Government's only role is to protect, not to distort. It is important to note that safety is the only legitimate concern for governments, not remuneration. These workers came to the cities for the prospect of a better life. If they are paid poorly its because they see a benefit either from their old job (in agriculture) or in training (future prospects). The notion of super-profits is actually the basis by which China has funded its rapid ascension. All the better to keep these 'unfavorable' worker conditions, lest it lose that growth opportunity to another country.

2. Sweat shops in Melbourne are similar to prostitutes kept illegally: These people might appear always to be the victim, but often they are operating on the same paradigm. They would prefer to be living in the West rather than a prostitute den in the East. Why? The environment is better, they can bet the support of guilt-ridden, middle class liberals in the West, and perhaps even a visa. Illegal immigrants would prefer to work in factories here for $2/hour than the same overseas, if only so they have a nicer environment, the prospects to meet a husband to sponsor them. Often they come to Australia to study English, but it is just a facade so they can study in a factory. If not full time, part time for supporting income.

This is not a bad thing. Of course it is not desirable, but it is the price of distorted markets which governments create. The only solution is not to creative or expand distortive governments, as that is the cause. The solution is to disband or wind back such governments.

Another popular mythology is the idea that capitalism is responsible for the squalid conditions suffered by workers during the Industrial Revolution. These conditions, in the same way, arose because of the structural distortion caused by the sudden removal of oppressive religion. It was also intensified by the forced removal of farm hands from the 'commons' by government.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Sign petition to support WikiLeaks

Share |

There is a petition available where people can support WikiLeaks. Reading this article I am inclined to think that WikiLeaks is not acting with the greatest clarity of respect for human rights, but they are playing an important role in their promotion of human right violations, and I suspect they are getting better at it. Maybe they are hearing some of the criticism - unlike the US and other governments.

I suggest reading this article at the Atlasphere.com by Richen Patel

Signing the petition at Araaz.org.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

NZ is officially a police state

Share |

Welcome to the Fascist States of America, Australia, Britain, Canada and now New Zealand. Australia, NZ and Canada have yet to experience a terrorist threat, so one might wonder why we need laws which allow the government to 'snoop' into people's emails and hard disks. On this note, we have to appreciate that the terrorists have one. Why? We have become one of them. They might well be envious because they have only guns to control their citizens, but the 'British subject' has his thoughts controlled. Yes, everything I think goes onto my hard disk, and those who don't think live in freedom. Its the perfect fascist state. It will turn us all to sheep, for those of you who have not been turned to sheep already.

Why is this a problem? Well, there are several reasons:

1. The law can be poorly executed

2. The law can result in mis-use or treatment of property

3. The law can result in property seizures and confiscations

4. People who are merely opposed to government can have their property seized and destroyed.

5. People who are political opponents of government can have 'incriminating' files placed on such 'seized' property, and probably be incarcerated indefinitely.

6. It allows the government to identify the 'political threats' to its existence and to 'terminate' them.

The problem of course is that these fears do not register in the minds of the general populous, who would never give a thought to political implications. They live at the level of a sheep, never questioning anything. So, what can we expect? Well, non-registered journalists like myself who have a few blogs under a pseudonym the government does not know about, who talk about a broad array of public policy issues like rape, domestic violence, terrorism, taxation, pedophilia, rights, political persecution, are likely to come up on some database as a threat. Because I am not a registered journalist, therefore for some unthinking bureaucrat a 'plausible threat' I can expect a squad of anti-terrorists to break into my property and seize property. If the contents of the computer do not agree with the government, I might well expect to lose them. There is no reason why they could not plant material on the computer. Why? Because they don't like my political opinions. Because I am not tolerable. Because I am an activist showing contempt for what they believe in.

We might wonder why is terrorism getting so much attention. We have many more babies being killed by domestic violence, but we do search and seizures for parenting classes. We do not take a register of people not attending parenting classes; and yet there is an equally good correlation. The difference is that many more children are killed of domestic violence in NZ than by terrorism; for which the number is zero. That is right, we are considering anti-terrorism laws despite NZ never having had a terrorist attack. Over-reaction? I think so.

It gets worse. Governments are the worst offenders of the law, whether you are talking about 'the rule of law', or simply moral law because 'popularity' or 'emergency provisions' or the 'common good' was considered an adequate (but arbitrary) protection of people's interests.

It gets worse. How can we expect foreign governments to adopt rights if we give token consideration to them. If we look like hypocrites to the developing world, or even our own people, what expectation can be have that those people will respect rights. The reason why government is such a threat is because they are not governed by the 'commonsense' common law. They are only accountable to the statutory law prepared by themselves. That's right, we are protected by them for us, but we are not protected from them. They are subjected to no accountability. The token vote you have at the end of the will mean little because there will only be two parties. How can there be a 'charismatic' alternative leader. He would have had his computers seized and evidence planted on him. You, as an unthinking sheep, will not join the dots. No one will risk joining the dots. We already live in a terrorist state. Some 200 journalists go missing or are assassinated in the Philippines each year, more in Russia, the Western governments say nothing....they do nothing. Why? They join us fighting for rights in foreign countries whilst our own rights are whittled away at home. They are not withdrawn, they are just undermined by statutory law. It defines rights in such arbitrary ways, that they are readily loopholed. They are 'arbitrary' laws that have no correspondence to reality. They are specific and concrete, and allow the government to loophole the law in the same way as companies are efficacious at loopholing tax. Which requires ever-more draconian measures to prevent tax evasion. The reality is that business is always going to be further ahead, but now business simply collects tax for the government. This is fascism at its worst, because now we have business organisations sanctioning taxation.

There are no reasonable grounds to suggest that NZ is under threat. People might argue that this intrusion into our privacy is intended to protect us. It might, but the problem is that it will not protect you from government, and they are a 'sovereign' threat to you. Even America will not invade NZ, because it likes these policies as well. So we will have to look to Iran and North Korea for rights, and they don't have any either.

If you want a sense of just how useless the United Station Declaration of Human Rights is, or the NZ Bill of Rights is, simply look at this law. I have long known that we were trending towards fascism. If you want a comparison consider this. In the lead up to World War II, the biggest exponent of animal rights was Hitler....and the national car plan - the Volkswagen. John Key has not found his 'national plan' yet, except perhaps his national day of mourning (Pike River), but we have today more concern for the rights of farm animals (i.e. the prohibition on pig enclosures - sow grates) than we do with human rights. We might wonder whether Hitler ever intended to elevate human rights, or to diminish the rights or value of the human populous.

There is no reason to think that the World Rugby Cup will pose any greater threat than any other event. After all, why would you attempt to blow up a stadium. You will have far more collateral damage if you blog us a shopping mall. Less security, more contained, less immediate threat. The malls are open every day, thousands of people to search, multiple entries, emergency exits. Few if any police. Why would you target a stadium. Better to blow something up when foreign journalists are in town; but does it really matter, as all media is syndicated these days. By todays standards, its the number of deaths which matter. A shopping centre would actually have a greater fear factor....as we all go shopping at least once a week, compared to attending the football.

The reality is that the intent to enact these laws is not about justice, its about political control. We never really left fascism. The 'New Deal' of Roosevelt after WWII was not the end of political tyranny, it was the start of a new form of it.

I really think people have to start fighting for their rights, because there is no place left on the planet to hide. I am giving serious consideration to becoming a mindless 'hobo'. Having a mind these days is inclined to give you a bad case of anxiety. Its too late. People carry to much, where its through evasion, psychological repression or simply rationalisation. They will do this to the grave because they do not think long term. They are not interested in the intellectual or political legacy they are leaving their children...they are thinking about the next year tops.

What they do not realise is that...the repudiation of the mind is sending us back to the Dark Ages. We are already close to this point. We are controlled by a mindless majority. Specialisation of industry has delivered vast wealth, but it has left our lives controlled by compartmentalised thinkers performing mindless 'specialised' routines without any thought for politics or morality. Why? Because they have no real vote....just the pretense of one. No one expects their vote to make a difference, so they just turn off. Unless voters turn back on and start protesting, things are going to get worse. It is far worse than they know. It is not the misery of war. It is the misery of centuries of silent defeat and stagnation. This email might well be your last beacon of light. If this legislation is past, anyone who writes such material will disappear, they will be arrested for homosexuality, child pornography. It does not matter. Anything which you can make us, stick evidence on their computers, and arbitrarily detain them in a gaol, and no one will care. We have got to the point where people don't care. There is no empathy. People will say, "He's rich, he can afford taxation", or they will say "If he didn't want to go to gaol, he should have just kept his mouth shut". These comments herald the decline of society into moral relativism. It follows moral scepticism or ambivalence. People do not need to be moral, they need to discover what morality entails. Principles....common law...not arbitrary statutory law.

This law is probably be the most important one in terms of marking our transition to a police state. After NZ, there are less regulated states one could go to, but those options like the Philippines or Thailand are probably going to see you tracked down by local assassins. Its cheaper for the government. If you think this is not happening, consider what is happening to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. The US government is using hackers to undermine his interests, they have discredited his reputation with accusations of rape....by two women no less...because who would believe it if it was one....despite the fact that he had no previous sexual offences....suddenly he has multiple offences. In the Philippines, there are about 200 journalists who have been killed under the Aquino Administration. The West might be just about to see its first one...but it will not be the last. Any appreciated blogger could be the next target. We are also witnessing a new form of corporate complicity....the server administrator who will do anything to stop the government hacking its web site. The government of course does not need to acknowledge that it is the government...it acts stealthly....just as those traceless 'radar-proof' planes that fly into foreign territories....with much to hide and without accountability.

The implication is that censorship is outmoded. Today, you might well be identified before you can even 'think' about matters contrary to government policy. Governments will have plenty of support from nationalists. In NZ, it will be mostly the old people. The young will just be indifferent and morally ambivalent. In the US, the military, religious nutters will be foot soldiers for the government, hacking into the websites of people whose values are contrary to the interests of the government. You will still live in a democracy; the term will just simply come to mean something very different to what you thought. You probably did not associate democracy with tyranny, the right of the majority to expunge the minority, but that's what you voted for. You just didn't think. Rights were supposed to be a protection. They were 'natural laws'. They have been supplanted by 'obligations' or conditional rights. Of course gradually there are more conditions, and those rights seem to mean even less. Censorship? Its a think of the past. The media is aligned with the government because they want the press release, and bloggers who get a certain number of hits are subjected to 'warnings' or simply their website is hacked by former military personnel. That is your future.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The moral credentials of business

Share |

Jerome Kerviel seems to have received a reasonable sentence in terms of jail time. I guess you can argue to that the civil damages of $US9 billion is a responsible penalty as well, though I don't see him as fully responsible for the damage. Squarely it was Societe General's responsibility to manage its clients and shareholders funds. Regardless of whether Jerome took methods to deceive the company of his losses; the reality is that its the responsibility of the company to protect the wealth of shareholders and customers. You cannot say...sorry...one of our staff members broke the rules. The reality is that we have to do what it takes to achieve objectives...and not hide behind the law.

The implication is that Societe General's executives ought to be responsible for their role in the action. We are accustomed to seeing people being punitively attacked as scapegoats. This problem is bigger than Jerome Kerviel's insecurities and need to delude people. There was a responsibility by senior executives responsible for security to anticipate the problems. The pertinent issues in prosecuting these executives ought to be:

1. Was the rogue trader given too much responsibility?

2. Were their adequate checks and balances in the system?

3. Were their efforts made to check the viability of the security measures?

4. Were their efforts to avoid systematic theft/fraud?

5. Was the company exercising industry 'best practice'

6. Had the company had its systems audited by competent parties?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but Jerome Kerviel ought not to be the person sole responsible for the error. The government as regulator simply ought not to have a role, because you can't expect a government, which has a legal sanction to extort taxation from people to care whether you or I are extorted...that is proof of their lack of interest in taxpayer's interests. That is where their interest stops. That is why taxation is fully-financed whilst justice is under-funded.

The next layer of responsibility falls upon shareholders. It is easy to blame executives, government regulators and rogue traders. The reality is that ultimate responsibility depends upon the victim to anticipate, to protect, and in this case to ultimately diversify one's investments to protect oneself. I remember getting angry recently because I lost money because I fraudulent disclosure by a mining company. The reality is that I knew the risks and simply some element of hope allowed me to take decisions I should not have made. Of course, that is not where I think my responsibility ends. I want to make the system better. I can start with lax regulation. The problem however is far more fundamental than that. The problem is education. People deal with such matters on a superficial level...if only we had better regulation...if only people were less selfish. The problem is more fundamental. The problem is not even education....its why people don't get an education. Its not even their value system. Its their theory of knowledge, and in some cases their sense of reality....or more correctly their ambivalent sense of reality. Clearly in this respect, I was not perfect because in the context of my burden of responsibilities that I have taken on in the last few years, I took my eye off my investments and lost money because of another's deception. Not just once, but because of systematic losses, it actually happened several times. You buy a company because it looks undervalued...as it turns out it can be undervalued for reasons...because there are things you don't know.

Now based on conversations...I do not expect everyone to grasp the nature of the problem. There are a great number of business people out there who think I'm deluded. When I engage with them I get all types of disparaging remarks, or arguments like they don't have time to deal with deluded people. In truth...yes my perception of truth...is that they have no time for ideas. They are ultimately moral sceptics. Ayn Rand, a novelist who defined a philosophy, which has greatly influenced mine, gave business people a great tribute. The problem was her accolade could be taken as a validation of business. I actually find the thinking of a great many business people as contemptible. I think society is the way it is because of business....not in spite of it. Why? Simply because business is too important to compromise on standards. We accept China might default, extort some manner of our 'liberal Western tradition', and we accept that as if it is ok. Our governments extort wealth, and we pretend that it is ok because some nominal good comes out of it.

Of course business people cannot be critiqued as a collective. They each have their own minds....but the reality is that few sparingly use it to the extent they should....and it shows in our social values. Now...I'm not saying the blame stops there. I am saying...if the world is to be saved...it starts with intellectuals and business people.

Business people can finance China...the bad aspect of China...or they can apply some standards and say we will act in principle. Too many businesses wait for a government action. They don't take a proactive position. One current issue is the illegal mining of tantalum in the Republic of Congo. The proceeds of that action are being used to finance the civil war which is allowing the rape, death and dispossession of the local population. This is occurring because business with low standards allow it to happen by not taking a proactive stand, or even profiting from it.

In history, we can see that change only happens when people see an opportunity to profit. i.e. The British offered slaves in the US land and freedom if they joined them in the civil war. More recently, I see that Gippsland Ltd has supported the end of illegal mining of tantalum in Africa. Is that because they believe in principles or because its in their interests? i.e. Of course any curtailment of mining in the Congo will increase demand and thus increase the appeal of Gippsland's project. But would the directors of that enterprise be so 'principled' if the shoe was on the other foot...if there protect was in the Congo. I wonder...actually I don't. I seldom see companies taking proactive decisions to see the 'broader common good' of moral standards. The problem is not with individual companies...the problem is they fail to seek some higher objective standard....even if their peak industry bodies were only to lobby voters or their governments.

We are not accustomed to seeing companies as moral agents. Given the appeal of money and their control over the great bulk of it; I think it is important we do. I am not suggesting that companies perform some noble gesture... actually I simply am encouraging them to act in their broader 'enlightened' self-interest. Higher objective standards are good for all concerned. They are like the tide which raises all boats. Not a good analogy since tides fall on the other side of the world...so you have to discard that analogy....i'll have to think of another. :)

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Debate on the legitimacy of statutory law

Share |

In this debate I am taking on a member of Political Forum.com on the illegitimacy of statutory law. My argument as stated earlier is that its arbitrary and that the democratic 'tyranny of the majority' is a breach of people's rights, and thus the system ought to be repudiated as a gross breach of personal freedom.

There are a lot of unthinking people around who want civil rights. I agree you don't have them, but precisely because you don't have them, any efforts to attempt to introduce them will result in a false promise. Its like John Howard sabotaging your right to a republic. He chose the questions which sabotaged any prospect of it.

We don't need civil rights; we need disbandment of arbitrary statutory law, and elevation of respect for common law, which predates statutory intervention. The idea that some parliament represents the people is a nonsense. The cold 'heartless' judicial interpretation of legal principles is a far superior defense of our rights. For this reason, I look towards judicial activism for protection, not civil rights, which could only be arbitrary statutory constructs, and therefore dubiously enacted. Are you expecting rights to be enacted by the agent which abuses them? Think again.

Response by Royd Bogan: "Common law isn't able to function by itself in a complex society".

Statutory law is necessary. Really? Would you care to prove that point. I would suggest it depends on how you want it to function. If you want it to expropriate funds from people...yes, true enough, it does not allow that.

Its why we have it....to expropriate. We went from the tyranny of kings, to the tyranny of 'lords' (minority), to the tyranny of the majority. Next is the tyranny of the climate facade. Then we would have gone full circle, back to the tyranny of the 'lord' dictator. Why? Because principles were not considered practical.

Response by Royd Bogan: "Have a look at the statutes of any parliament in Australia. See what they regulate or deal with, eg telecommunications. Now tell me statutory law isn't needed".

Response by MegadethFan: "Statutory law is needed in all cases".

That is an unsubstantiated assertion....falls flat don't you think?

Response by Royd Bogan: "No it doesn't. My example of telecommunications law shows that statutory law is necessary in a more complex society".

Nonsense. If we need a parliament to achieve a sensible telecommunications framework, what capacity do they as a parliament have which you and a group of mates, or even an anarchy does not? Force? Are you saying good policy just needs the coercive state to achieve a 'logical' outcome.

We have assemblies (parliaments or Congress) not because we could not otherwise reach a decision, but because people don't think we have time, or the capacity to deal with opposition, regardless of whether it is reasonable or flawed.

You would be surprised how simple and how harmonious society can be if people live according to principles, with a respect for logic/objectivity. I know because I've been among such people. But all that is repudiated by 'practical' people like yourself who want action before thought. Ask yourself why there is little serious debate in parliament. Its because its results do not matter. Its easier to pay off people than convince them....as they don't think like their counter parties.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australian Labor government on censorship

Share |

I am so pleased that Australians seem to have awoken to the ineptness of the Rudd government. I was very critical of the Liberal government with its First Home Owners Grant and assorted policies, but Labor falls to new depths of - not simply incompetence - but ethical depravity..... all in the name of ethics. For example:

1. Its Robin Hood-styled policy of redistributing income from the 'wealthy miners' to the poor 'under-superannuated'

2. The proposed internet censorship bill - see

a. “Conroy's internet censorship agenda slammed by tech giants” by Asher Moses, SMH Online, website, March 23, 2010

b. “Google keeps private Wi-Fi data” by Asher Moses, SMH Online, website, 24^th May 2010.

c. 'Petulant' Conroy accuses Google of 'single greatest privacy breach' by Asher Moses, SMH Online, website, 25^th May 2010.

The problem I have with the censorship laws proposed are that they have the capacity to give the government that capacity to regulate criticism. It is characteristic of Russia's fascist leader Putin...so Rudd must be somewhat envious of his position.

I am reminded of my criticism of an TV3 story in NZ on 'receding glaciers' to the NZ Broadcasting Standards Committee. The idea of Rudd appointing a group of people to regulate what websites we can see strikes me as VERY DANGEROUS to political freedom. It makes you wonder whether these people are so myopic that they can't see the implication of their policies, or whether they simply have some fascist theorists working in their backoffice. In my case, the NZ Broadcasting Standards Committee, which no doubt comprises a group of government-appointed liberals, did not exercise good critical thinking skills, and little respect for standards of scientific evidence.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Why are Western politics less extreme?

Share |

In my previous article I was reflecting on the differences between Western and Russian politics. Russian politics seem so much more extreme than ours. i.e. Mikhail Khodorkovsky posed a threat to President Putin, so he was sent to gaol for 6 years. It is improbable that he will ever be released as long as Putin is in power.

You can't do that in Australia....well you don't need to. Consider Pauline Hanson. After 3 months in gaol people did not identify her as a victim. She made a mistake, but the opposition parties had achieved their objective. They had sabotaged her credibility prior to an election. That would not work in Russia because no one has credibility. Corruption is expected. Maybe you expect the same of Australian politicians. More than likely you thought prison was a little extreme for her.

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

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

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Comparing Russian and Australian politics

Share |

Do you look at Russian politics and think you are glad you don't have to contend with fascism like in 'that country'. Well maybe you do. Here is a story by CNN about Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former CEO of Yukos, the oil company he purchased in an oil privatisation. This story is basically that he is in prison because he under-stated or evaded taxes. He is close to being released, so a number of other charges are being made against him by President Putin. Now the reason why Putin is alleged to have placed him in prison is because he was an prospective political opponent of him. He was considering running against Putin in the election, and was otherwise financing opposition parties to Putin. The implication is that you have no rights is you challenge power in Russia.

Now lets look at government in Australia. Some years ago this awkward, naive Queensland woman was receiving a great deal of political support in Australia because she did not fit the usual political mold in Australia. She spoke honestly, and argued for some issues which a segment of Australians were concerned about. I don't support her views, but she received a lot of support from those who agreed with her 'white Australia' agenda. This women was of course Pauline Hanson. Prior to the coming election, this women was rolled by interests associated with Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party. We do not hear any defence of Pauline by the Labor Party, so you might conclude that they had some sympathy with the Liberal Party on this issue. Maybe you were thinking that Labor just didn't like her politics. But there is more to this. This was an intent to preserve the duopoly in Australian politics - between Liberal and Labor.

Consider the example of the Liberals going after Kevin Rudd in the case of 'Ute-gate', where he was supposed to be the benefactor of election contributions which were not registered. The Liberals really went after Rudd. That's ok for Labor, because it might discredit Rudd, but not the Labor Party. The party is a brand, or independent identity, so it tends to preserve its amoral agency. i.e. We do not blame the brand for failing, we blame the CEO. But what if that organisation or political structure is flawed in its construction because of a lack of competition, perhaps because it preserves certain financial benefits for politicians. i.e. Life time pension as an MP. Does that not support my argument that Hanson was rolled in the same way that Mikhail Khodorkovsky was rolled in Russia? Of course Russian politics are so much more 'extreme' than Australian politics.

Tony Abbott orchestrated the arrest of Pauline Hanson for election contributions. She served 3 months in prison if I remember correctly, before a judge overruled the decision. Perhaps the judge ruled that it was a trivial complaint compared to what other parliamentarians do in the grand scheme of things, with their abuse of MP allowances. Consider though that Abbott had done what he wanted to do. He had discredited a political aspirant. To be sure she was not going to be an important force, but she threatened to divide the Liberal Party vote, and in the process she was going to cost the Liberal Party the election. She was rolled because she was a threat. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was rolled because he was a threat.

So do you think the answer to fascism under Kevin Rudd is to vote for a Liberal Party member? I don't think so. I think you're best prospects for freedom in Australia is to vote for Libertarians, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Is that enough? No, not for sure. The Libertarians are not an intellectual group, so they are not going to overturn the intellectual issues which are undermining the country. They will however be a reprieve from statism.

Interested in why Russian politics are more extreme that Australian politics? See my next post.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Share |

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

1. Preserve the power base of the two major parties - 'the duopolistic solution'

2. Preserves the administration of the current political party

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

It has been 6 years at least for myself waiting for these political parties to act. I have been waiting for them to legislate against the banks. I could ill-afford to waste money taking legal action against CBA/Comsec, and now there emerges a 'financial solution' in the form of IMF Australia (i.e. FinancialRedress.com.au), and the ASIC obstructs it. Clearly the reason ASIC is doing this is because if IMF is successful, it will be incredibly embarrassing for the government, because it did not act to address the problem. It will highlight the bleating inadequacies of our political system. i.e. That banks can rip off millions of customers 'small-time' and get away with it. Finally after taking 6 years of crap from them, a 'white knight' emerges in the form of IMF Australia, and the government 'harpoons' them, preventing them from acting through the courts to get justice for most Australians. The government is embarrassed. Any resolution it makes will be a half-measure to protect its interests. I think the reality is that government knows the costs of this action are greater than has been disclosed. You see the banks are not simply liable for damages over bank fees, but also broker fees. e.g. Comsec owes me $20,000 in over-charged fees for its stupid broking platform. Its later actions caused me a further $10,000 in losses because they issued certificates and closed my account without adequate warning. The reality is that this 'political solution' is a cover-up.

Australians have no rights....you never did...you simply are living an illusion. Justice is unaffordable, offers no protection, and you live in hope that you can hobble through life without being affected.

It will be interesting to see if IMF takes action in the High Court to demand the release of this information. These are of course delay tactics. Labor would like to see the issue addressed by Liberals so it reflects on them. But really its a 'conspiracy'. I have long recognised that any action by myself to seek solutions by government, or through ASIC, always amounted to zero. Why? Lack of resources was the standard answer. Here is a case where there are private resources, and the government is preventing it. Why? It ought to be clear.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Tuhoe nation independence – or misuse of NZ government power

Share |

The NZ government under John Keys is ‘generously’ offering to extend self-government to the Tuhoe nation (or Maori ‘iwi’). The view among most European NZ’ers is that this deal is too generous, or that it is silly to divide the nation (i.e. separatism). The problem of course is that we don’t at this stage know the nature of the negotiations. The lack of broad-based consultation is unsurprisingly. Seldom do governments like accountabiliyy. I already have a sense of what the deal is going to mean:

1. The Tahoe iwi will have a limited form of self-government, i.e. independent land use policy within certain standards, certain revenue raising powers within limits.
2. They will have the right to participate in the broader NZ economy, and NZ’ers will have the capacity to engage in the external economy
3. Dept of Conservation (DOCs) land use restrictions will remain; there will probably be external limits to setting of fees on lands by Europeans.
4. They will have the power to raise their own taxes – probably within limits

The legitimacy of their land right claims is itself a contentious issue. I tend to think they deserve them because the British freely entered into a treaty with them. The flipside is that they conveyed no respect for land rights prior to European arrival. They were hedonistic culture, so it could be argued that Europeans merely plundered the same spoils. Regardless of the history, ‘individual rights’ are a desirable concept if properly defined. Unfortunately I have yet to encounter a politician or protagonist who does justice to the concept. Each protagonist is really nothing more than a more localised tyrant.

We might ask why the government is so amenable to this. I would suggest the following reasons:

1. Keys wants to be perceived as the great ‘liberator’ among the NZ liberals, hoping to get votes from Labour, as well as Liberals, and Maoris. He is hoping that this gives him a majority of votes in both houses of parliament so that he can adopt the ‘real reforms’ he wants across the broader economy. Reform is not always good.
2. Keys knows that the Tahoe nation under self-government is destined to fail. Any appointed Tahoe government will likely be corrupt or unable to administer efficiently for cultural reasons. i.e. Despite the notion that these people are rich in culture, they are pretty superficial values, not deep-seated productive ones. I even note that one of the prophets for Tahoe ‘Rua Kenana Hepetipa’ was a self-appointed Christian messiah. We hardly need another one of those. The more important point is that this group are only united by their shared marginalisation by Western society. Where is the culture to unite then once they have self-government?
3. Western government has long rested upon the ability to tax a ‘productive class’. Western government is successful – not because of public administration – but in spite of it. The implication is that without Western standards of productivity, i.e. western knowledge and values, the Tahoe iwi is quickly going to descend into anarchy. Read the history of this group will highlight the historical legacy of this. Read about the Tahoe people. I personally hope they succeed because I like to see people succeed, and have no interest in people’s failure. The same cannot be said of the NZ government, who are parasites by their very nature - living off others efforts through taxation and false representation. I might raise the same concerns about the leaders of the Tahoe people – whom I don’t know. Are they really champions of liberty, or simply ‘victims’ with a good ‘boo hoo’ story.
4. The government will consider this a triumph because it was perceived as a liberator. It will guarantee Keys a decade of leadership, and probably control of both houses. I think his strategy will eventually be seen for what it is – a power play. All Keys really wants is a 2-house majority. I think people will have mixed feelings about Keys in future. He will have reformed a country, but he will have also destroyed a people, as well as all prospects of anyone getting individual rights. This is not where and how rights should be defended. If we are ever to have individual rights, they will not be defended in Iraq or the Tahoe nation. They will be defended in the streets of Wellington, Sydney or LA, or in a High Court. But people have to start caring about their lives, thinking long range, and to self-reflect on their inner state of psychological repression. This tribe is a reactionary group with a small intellectual class of lawyers. There is no Adam Smith among them. They are a group of marginalised, disenfranchised people. They are destined to drive their people blindly towards chaos. I don’t want that for them, but also not so Keys can score some points. The integration of Maori into European-dominated NZ is a fragile peace. This political strategy is destined to destroy a great deal of trust and peace, and to break the minds of an incipient nation.
5. The Keys government knows that chaos is likely, and in any case it is preserving 'effective' control over the region, which does not produce much anyway. By allowing this Tahoe iwi to fail, they are discouraging all NZ iwi’s from pursuing this path. This is a grand experiment destined to lead to cultural abuse. I would not be surprised if there is civil unrest resulting in deaths as a result of this policy. Of course Keys will ‘reluctantly’ have to send in the police to retain order, and that will be the end of it. Once again the Tahoe iwi will have been quashed. Once again government wil have not learned a lesson from history.

Something really good could come out of this process if government was not more interested in locking in its own political power. If it was genuinely interested in advancing the interests of the Tahoe people. Not at its own interests but because they thought advancement was in everyone’s interests. Despite the ‘strategic’ aspects of this policy, Keys is still in a sense thinking short-range or non-conceptually here, even if his ‘critical thinking’ advisors have already created the expectation of failure. The values sought are short range or non-conceptual. And I expect no better from the Tahoe iwi.

Here is another article on this issue. I disagree with this interpretation. This writer states:

“People have been concerned about the implications of iwi self-government .... Does it mean separatism? Does it mean two sets of rights - one for Maori and one for everybody else?”

The problem is his poorly defined concept of rights. It is not a case of different rights, since neither party is recognising rights in any meaningful way. In fact its more a case of obligations than rights. Rights are protections – not obligations. Rights convey a sense of living for oneself uninhibited by others. Fascists define 'rights' as obligations in order to confer fake benefits upon you, so they can control your life, as Western governments control all lives. If you want to understand the soul of the 'born to rule' Western liberal, attend one of their 'young liberal' meetings in their early 20s, and they will happily tell you that:

"The people need to be controlled for their own good".

Each society will live under the same set of ‘umbrella’ laws, it’s just that the iwi will have the power to shape some of its own laws. However that is the collective ‘iwi’ shaping the law as it applies to you as an individual. Does that mean better representation? Unlikely. Practical interests tend to prevail where reason is not the standard of value, and no formal system exists to recognise the interests of all stakeholders.

This policy is analogous to a father placing their son in harms way so that they learn a lesson of compliance, not good self management. The implication is that Keys is pursuing a well-tread path of 'fatherly' abuse, even if it is 'politically correct'. Politics is never as it seems.

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

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Human rights - making a difference

Share |

The Australian Human Rights Commission has opened up a dialogue with the Australian people. It is serious about recognising the rights of Australians. I think at this juncture its more important to consider why the right of rights is being raised. I would suggest it is because the government has evidence that people are perturbed by the way 'the system' operates. Identification of the problem is the first step. But what if the government is not interested in identifying the problem. It cannot just say there is no problem as that would invalidate all those Australians who feel the system does not work for them. So we have foremost a process which is intended to give the disillusioned hope. Hope of something better. The problem is that most of these hopefuls don't bother or don't have the resolve to identify why they are so perturbed. Its a responsibility they don't want to shoulder; whether its the responsibility for how they feel, or their lack of prosperity.
The way government resolves this issue is important. You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your government. Of course there is the rhetoric of choosing your government through the democratic process, but what type of choice is it when all the members of parliament are aligned with a two-party duopoly. That's like a choice between the Satan and God.
So the Human Rights Commission is I guess about to do a roadshow. The first one is on the 5th of March 2009. Most Australians will sleep right through it. Its not supposed to have significance, and it won't. Why? Because the framework was established to avoid significance. They wanted you to believe they were doing something, that they had you covered. The process however is all about appearances. Making it look like they are doing something. In fact what they do is just sabotage the process. Create a lot of smoke and haze.
After this series of presentations around the country you will find that you will be given the opportunity to lodge a submission. The problem is you submission, to the extent that you have something interesting to say, will not have its issues addressed. Basically the problem is - the process is not accountable. I've seen it all before. You make a submission and the government just flags an incidental, incontroversial, self-evident point and quotes that in their policy document. They can then say they sought views widely from all quarters of society. The reality however is they are whitewashing the pertinent and controversial issues to ensure that their agenda is upheld.
This is not new. We say it with the Australian Republican issue. The Howard government knew Australia wanted a Republic. It could have canvassed dissent, and gave us 3 options - monarchy and 2 different options for a Republic so that the Republicans votes would be split. This of course allowed the Monarchists to win. Instead it chose a compromised Republican option (indirect selection of president by parliament) rather than the directly-elected presidential option the people wanted. In the process the government made sure the people's vote failed. It was a sabotaged process, just as this Human Rights process is sabotaged.
Maybe the Commissioner of this commission has some integrity, but you can bet they have more ambition to achieve that they will not place themselves in a position of conflict. That remains to be seen. Do they think you achieve more with a consensus approach to ideas, or creating conflict. History tells me they will try to work behind the scenes to achieve their goals. I would suggest based on the speeches of the Commissioner that they are as clueless as the government. These people start out as idealists, but with no coherent ideas. Their souls are dead by the time they become commissioner, and they just don't believe in anything but their own ambition. The reason I know this is because who would try to work in a system which is corrupt at its root. Would you play soccer if your team had to play in bare feet, and the opposition was allowed to wear spiked shoes. That is the nature of the current handicapping system.

If you want to attend this facade - here are the details. Unfortunately I will not be in the country.
Seminar Invitation: A Human Rights Act, the courts and the Constitution
The Hon Michael McHugh AC, QC, distinguished jurist and former Justice of the High Court of Australia, will present his views on human rights in Australia and their protection through a Human Rights Act.
Venue: The Hearing Room, Australian Human Rights Commission
Level 8, Piccadilly Tower, 133 Castlereagh St Sydney
Date: Thursday 5 March 2009, Time: 5:15pm (for 5:30pm start) – 7:00pm
Light refreshments will be served at the conclusion.
RSVP: associate@humanrights.gov.au
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com