How accountable is government?

Share |

One of the blatant contradictions that arises with government is their utter lack of public accountability. Private citizens and business people are required to act with a great deal of prudence in the way they conduct themselves, yet government officers ('bureaucrats') can act with impunity. Under the worst possible conditions they are likely to just lose their jobs. Many of them with just resign before that occurs so they can keep their generous lifetime pension.

We all know that there are laws which require the government to act in a certain way. The problem is that there are no substantive consequences if the government does not act the right way. The public organisations that execute or are enforce the laws are mostly not accountable for their actions. This means that the government is treated differently from companies or private individuals. The implication is that the government faces little deterrence other than bad publicity for non-compliance or poor execution. The reason is that voters have come to expect ineptitude from both sides of politics. Why? Because competition is GOOD right? Oh except for politicians. In politics there is no law preventing parties from forming cozy duopolies. Have you ever noticed that there is a cozy duopoly in every democratic country. Have you ever wondered why that exists? Let's extrapolate a little. Have you ever wondered why politicians are so inept and unethical?
Let's consider NZ - which is a pretty typical Western democracy. Probably freer than most. It was only from 2002 that public organisations were able to be prosecuted for a limited range of offences under the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act 2002. However, the application of this Act is currently limited only to offences under the Building Act 2004 and the Health and Safety and Employment Act 1992. What is more poignant here is that fact that taxpayers are going to pay any damages. I frankly don't know of any scam that beats that! Why should anyone be free of accountability?
Don't expect the media to do anything about this disparity in political values.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Libertarianism - what's in a word?

Share |

I have not had much to do with libertarianism, though on some level I might be considered one. Certainly I am a fan of small government. I might even be a fan of competing governments depending on what grab bag of functions you think government should be taking care of. I tend to think it matters little who administers anything as the responsible party is responsible or accountable and that reason is the standard. This need not just apply to the law......and this is where I depart from a great many libertarians.
I have this problem with them. They are advocates of freedom on the premise that freedom is restraint from initiating force. On this point I am in agreement with them. But this strikes me as law, and not morality. This philosophy of libertarianism has no theory of values. It defines what you can't do, and offers no moral guidance for what you should do. You might argue that you should do anything up until the point at which you start hurting others.
The problem of course is - what constitutes hurt or injurious behaviour? Certainly we can see the impact of stealing something of value, or the hurt or injury of a gun shot wound. But what about more intangible actions like:
1. Giving a child, or even selling their adult parents alcohol
2. Selling pornography to anyone who pleases
3. Selling drugs to kids or adults

Now, depending on your country's attitudes to these things, these actions might be either legal or not. Legality really comes down to repressed religious oppression or self-indulgence on such issues because I have yet to see a rational explanation or a 'theory of values' to explain why these actions are right or wrong.....apart from the general 'consensus' that its impractical to break the law. Clearly people do, and they are tolerated, or they get away with it.

I would argue that these actions are unethical, or immoral, and I make no distinction between these words. Someone might want to waste their time? Just give the job to a bureaucrat. I am only interested in words to the extent that they denote something in reality, and not words that fit into some arbitrary construction, detached from reality. Conclusion...because its the law!

I would argue that pornography, drugs and alcohol are not ethical practices if they detract from your quality of life, and if they medicate rather than solve problems. They detract because they don't resolve issues, and nor are they a stepping stone to finding solutions. They are an act of evasion. Do they hurt other people? No. That is why they are not often illegal. But herein lies the problem, they are not going to help you solve problems, and given a proper theory of values, they are going to just medicate people. This is not an inappropriate thing to do when you live in a police state. The worst police states in the world like Soviet Russia have the worst problems.

So in conclusion I find libertarian valueless - but then its the law - its not supposed to be based on a theory of values. It is the role of the law to provide the context in which the law is applied. Another problem is, after spending all that money on libraries, the government leaves nothing for justice, and that to me is the essence of liberty. Instead we get CEOs, bankers doing all sorts of damage, and the government is too underfunded to do anything about these issues.

------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

NSW government to squander privaitsation funds

Share |

According to the SMH, the NSW taxpayers are about to lose $3 billion in public funds. You might be asking why? Well there are several reasons:
1. The NSW government is selling state assets at a time when public assets are at their lowest value in 20 years, and confidence is low
2. The way previous privatisations have been performed is that the government commits the utilities to long term vested contracts which lock in future revenues in order to get a higher price from the sale. The implication is that taxpayers are effectively being taxed
3. The broking industry is paid huge sums to coordinate a privatisation process which would be far cheaper if the government just tendered the sale of each power station, yet made a commitment to sell all of them.
4. The taxpayer would have been better off if the government had reformed the sector prior to sale
5. The taxpayer would have been better off if the industry was structured in a way which delivered competitive electricity services
6. The taxpayer would be better off if

The sale of NSW power assets is expected to raise $10 billion for the government. The decision is being taken because the NSW Labor government has placed the state’s finances in a parlous state. It is now under pressure to sell assets to buy its way out of the political dumpster. This is a political backflip by a government that has long campaigned for public utility ownership. Now it finds itself in a bind, it wants to sell off the family jewels for a song. This is just further evidence of the short-range thinking of politicians. Whilst I agree these assets should be sold, this approach is nothing more than a short term grab-for-cash. The notion that these assets needed to be sold, according to Finance Minister Joe Tripodi, was because “private sector investment was needed to ensure power supplies in NSW into the future”. This is nonsense. There is no reason why the government cannot tender for a build-own-operate power station. There is no reason why these assets need to be sold. This is political party cash raising prior to the next election to find future election bribes. This is a power-hungry party placing its own interests ahead of taxpayers.
Joe Tripodi’s other reason for privatising power assets was to “return proceeds from the sale to NSW taxpayers”. Of course there will be a return because these assets have been held by the government for decades. The question is why now? Why sell when the stock market has fallen through the floor. There is a very good reason and its totally political. They want access to the cash, at a time when they will not get a good price for an asset which is a cash cow.
There are many examples around the world where taxpayers experienced a deterioration of service and a huge increase in costs after privatising power supplies. NZ has amongst the lowest cost power plants in the world, but its power costs have blown out since these businesses were privatised. Why? Because assets which were previously political instruments (and thus not open to service price increases) are now ‘market instruments’ upon which the government has poorly conceived the ‘competitive market model’ such that these utilities can collude to charge what they like. Prices are at the end of the day going to be charged
The problem is that by selling these assets in such bad times most investors will steer away from these ‘cash assets’. The bulk of shares will go to foreign investors who will be using their cheap $A to buy up these assets. The profits will go to foreign utilities and brokers for doing nothing. For cutting staff to trim costs which the government was too scared to do for political reasons. There will also be higher consumer prices after the next election because the utilities will not have the same compelling ‘political’ reasons for keeping prices low.
This is not good policy, this is not goo leadership. This is political expediency from the NSW. We saw the same with the railways in Sydney. Talking up a non-commercial railway then dropping the project after the election. This is typical political electioneering and VERY CYNICAL POLITICS. Taxpayers might superficially think that the state is making money from this deal, but it’s getting a fraction of what it should because the government will squander the benefits. This should be considered as taxation (for the high prices you will pay), higher surcharges (for all the commissions paid to brokers) and kickbacks (for all the money they will spend on marginal seats prior to the next election).
-------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Brown and rhetorical thinking

Share |

Well I just read the speech by Gordon Brown to the US Congress. I would have to say it was the most boringly predictable, uninteresting speech I have read of late. It talks of course of his love of America, shared values, fighting terrorism, climate change and the perils of economic crisis. The reality is that you can no longer learn the mark of a man from his speeches because they no longer write them. They are fluff pre-conceived to be safe and uninteresting. Its not a platform to influence people but to be magnanimous in the most shallow of ways - with words rather than deeds. The reason I say this is because:
1. The reaction of Arab terrorists is partly in answer to the lack of principle exhibited by the US and Britain in the Arab world. These countries did not care about Arab people, only that they got their oil revenues, and after nationalisation of oil assets, only that they got cheap oil supplies. The price they paid was Sept 11th. Was blowing up the trade towers justification for 9/11? Yeh, if you magnanimously talk about friends and crap without dealing with the levels of disenchantment in the Arab world on the issue of US foreign policy.
2. Greenhouse gas policy - the US has been far from a supporter of 'good oil' policy. It has artificially over-stimulated the US economy, to the point of precipitating a sustained recession/depression. It continues to have among the cheapest petrol in the world. If it was opposed to greenhouse theory, let us here its arguments.
3. Western alliance - how can you talk up an alliance with Britain, Australia, NZ and ignore the absence of other Western countries.
4. Economic crisis - How can you talk about being defenders of economic prosperity when your government is complicit in the unravelling of the global economy.

I personally love crises because that is when I make a lot of money. Crises are followed by commodity booms. In crises people think short term. That is when I do my long term planning. But that does not change the fact that I would happily do something else rather than destroy people's lives - that is those people who depend on economic activity. So such speeches really do speak words of shallow rhetoric. Talk and deeds are transparently different. But no, he is a fitting addition to the US Congressional bench.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

The politics of energy consumption

Share |

I am not a greenie by any means. I don't think we should sacrifice human lives or wants for the environment, or the habitat of some obscure species until a personal value proposition can be made for saving such 'values'. If they can be made, then I think it should be a personal commitment, and not the role of government (alas taxpayers) to finance. I am still a little skeptical about greenhouse gas theory, partly because of the dubious rationalisations I have seen made by scientists over the years. There is one piece of evidence that scares me though - and that is the rising global concentrations of methane gas concentrations. One reason why this scares me is because around the world we are extracting methane from coal seams. Unlike conventional gas reservoirs, coal seam gas extraction occurs at depths of just 200-600m, not several kilometres down. The implication is that there is greater probability of methane researching the surface through faults and joints as the hydrostatic water pressure falls from the wells. I can't say I know the dynamics of gas migration, but this ought to be considered as a future time bomb issue given that methane is 100x worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. I am not concerned with the CO2 extracted, but rather the smaller portion that is wasted, that leaks into the atmosphere.
Another issue that concerns me is the fact that:
1. Products are designed to waste energy - the remote control places appliances into sleeper mode, in which I understand a device uses a third of its operating power. This is a huge waste. I don't know if this is true of modern devices. I'd like to know. It seems to be manufacturer policy to encourage convenience, but is that what we need. Why don't we just build a TV with a bar fridge inclined, lest we have to walk to the fridge to get a beer.
2. Lights in office towers in CBDs around the world are left on 24 hours a day. Is this necessary? I'm sure its aesthetically pleasing.
3. Junk mail: I'm in NZ now, and daily I receive hoards of junk mail in my letterbox. This comes to me care of the government. The post office charges advertisers for postmen to place this material in your letterbox. Only a few of us can be bothered reading it. It is not very effective advertising. Its cheap because trees in the Amazon rainforests are cheap. People are too lazy to put 'No junk mail' on their letterbox. This is something you could campaign to your government about. I think its the same problem in every country. Advertisers should not be able to send you unsolicited paid 'junk' mail. Just they use the government.

Its not all bad news. Here are some positive developments:
1. Annual reports: Several years ago I lamented the waste receiving annual reports by snail mail every year for every stock investment, which I never read because I would read them online, or not at all because the information in an annual report is superficial at best, and its 3 months old by the time you receive it. Now you can elect to receive them by email, download them off the internet or receive a mailed copy.
2. Snail mail for bills: For years now I have been lamenting the slow pace at which utilities and banks have moved to online billing. The banks have been very slow in this respect, but faster than other enterprises. I travel, and live in foreign countries, so its nice to be able to receive my bills by email. I also want to retain a paperless office. We are slowly moving in that direction. My bank has all statements online now EXCEPT my Mastercard statements.
3. Online trading: Its now far easier to buy products online 2nd hand which you would otherwise have bought new. We are setting up a house in NZ, and we purchase most of our home contents online for 1/3-1/2 price. Its good to find a use for other people's rubbish, and it saves a lot. We bought 500 bricks for just $10 on one occasion, a canoe, and some furniture. Auctions, recycling depots and charitable organisations offer even cheaper products.

I am not against businesses advertising. I am against unsolicited junk and WASTAGE. I do love and appreciate our natural environment. Fortunately I am living in a clean, green environment in NZ, but interestingly here they are more neglectful than anywhere. My country town does not recycle at door. You have to use recycling depots. At least there is an option.

Change is very slow in the world. But the message is slowly leaking out.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

What to do with speeding fines

Share |

Having recently left Australia, one of the issues that was plaguing me was the silliness of government. Frankly I am not willing to repress my annoyance at these pathetic people, so I decided to protest from abroad. This was my response to their $80 penalty notice.

Dear NDM,
My brother contacted you without asking me. He probably wants me to pay. I asked him to send the notice to me because I am overseas. I am overseas because (in part) the poor state of justice in Australia. Worse than most semi-free countries. I actually don't intend to pay, though nor do intend to pay $12,000 for court action as some Victorians did fighting a silly law in Victoria. Actually I regard the whole issue of taxing speeding fines as illegitimate for several reasons. This is a constitutional matter so that is the proper place for it. The problems are:
1. The tax is a cynical exercise in taxation - there is no evidence to suggest 'speeding kills'. Road fatalities has more to do with teenagers trying to impress friends. I was pulled over by police overseas, they think Australian driving restrictions are a joke.
2. Speed policing actually increases road anxiety. For the next 3-4 hours after copping that camera I was in a state of stress. Why? Because its the 2nd time I was placed in a state of conflict over a silly process. Its the same with drink driving. I remember seeing recently a story of a guy on his 24th drink driving conviction. Miraculously the guy is still alive. I guess we are all just a bit more logical and reasonable than the government gives us credit for. These silly laws exist only because people do not challenge them. People tolerate them too much. I'm tired of it, so I left the country, rather than deal with your stupid fines.
3. Speed limits are non-contextual. They dont consider weather conditions, road conditions, vehicle weight, visibility, driver training/age/experience
4. I have no faith in the judiciary either because (a) judges are not directly accountable, merely accountable to another judge under appeal. Not good enough. (b) Judges are supposed to reach objective (rational) outcomes by interpreting arbitrary rules/laws, which makes no sense at all. Cases in the US with respect to taxation show that the judiciary in Western democracies apply a self-serving interpretation of the law. They are selective about the judgements they take as law. Basically contradictions are allowed. Of course, like you, they work for the government.
5. Judges and the judiciary was a lovely concept 300 years ago when laws were based on common law, which actually had some sense to it, some semblance of objectivity. Legislation is based on arbitrary rules/laws with no sense of reality at all. The public is divided - half believe they should be good slaves, the other half thinking they should pay a cynical tax because the govt would just use other means to reach the same ends. I reject all forms of slavery. It is not a user pay charge.

Thanks for the opportunity to be a slave; but I'll politely decline your offer. If you are not convinced by my arguments I would happily counsel your analysts or whatever thinkers you have in your department about the unethical framework in which you operate. I'd rather focus on being a productive human being, but the only productive human being are compliant slave by your standards. There was once a time when laws were about protecting the right of people, but the law has become so perverted that your concept of rights and obligations are claims on people. Your Human Rights commission is a joke. A theatrical performance to make it look like you actually care about the lives of people. So are your speeding laws. In any respect you seem intent on placing obstacles on the road. I don't speed by my judgement. I'm not an advocate of arbitrary, self-indulgent action, just I don't abide by rules imposed by others who have no sense.

regards,
Andrew
------------------------------------------------
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