ART06: Rights of the Community

Some Australians have adopted the view that if the majority of citizens want some policy or another, then their numbers legitimise the claim. This is not what the freedom of western society is built on.

A community only has rights in communal areas. For example, take life - does a person need permission from the community to live? Only a nutter would say "yes".

Can this unalienable right to live be extended to individual liberty? It should.

Does the majority have a right to control a citizen's personal decisions? No - unless that citizen is forcibly denying other individuals of their life, liberty, or property. If an individual is reclusive, unsociable, uncompassionate or eccentric - the community has no moral mandate to control that citizen. This is the nature of freedom.

A person's labours are also not owned by the community. People live in communities for their mutual benefit, and the trade and donation of their labour must be freely given. A person's property and goods are the product of their labour, and so even when a citizen may have an abundance the community does not have inherent rights to it.

If then, an individual has natural rights to life, liberty and property, what are the communal areas the society does have claim to control?

The communal domain should be as small as possible and should only include areas that it is impossible for individuals control by themselves (or by voluntary co-operation with each other ie associations, charities, co-ops etc). Such areas as national defence, policing, the courts, roads, oceans are and should remain in communal control.

Communal areas should also be controlled and financed by the community closest to the individual - ie local roads by councils, intra-state road by the state, and national highways by the Federal Government.

When a citizen's rights are stolen - even if by the majority - that whole society is damaged, for without the individual a society is nothing.

VID01 - Taxes for Political Parties

Did you know the Australian Taxpayer funds some political parties and candidates?

Article 05: The Invisible Wrist

What is alternate self interest?

In 1776 in The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith outlined the idea that self interest (or everyone taking care of themselves and their own) would drive an economy to prosperity. This is because no one voluntary enters into a transaction unless it is to their benefit (ie you want those shoes and the sports store wants your money).

He explained that the butcher and the baker provide food for our dinner not because of their generosity, but because of their own self-interests. Smith explained that even in acting selfishly, people are often "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part" of their intentions 1

This is an incredibly robust motor because consistently through history people have had a keen interest in themselves.

Some claim however the dark side of the the invisible hand is that individuals become selfish, looking only after their own wealth. I believe however, critics overlook a principle I call the invisible wrist.

As with the invisible hand people look after their own interests, with the invisible wrist people next turn to the needs of people to whom they have something in common, or to whom they can relate to. It may also be termed alternate self interest, as people feel concern for others whom they feel they are akin to.

These examples are generalities, but are true more often than not :

• people who have lost a loved-one through cancer will often support cures for cancer research
• a mother with a 3 year old will be motivated to help after seeing footage of a toddler maimed in war torn city
• a wealthy inventor donates money to a program for educating young scientists
• we vividly remember when Hurricane Katrina hit in Aug 2005 killing 1,836 people, but how many can recall the earthquake in Yogyakarta that killed 6,234 this year? (May 2006 - it was in Indonesia) 2

Why do we do this? I believe it is because we can put ourselves in their shoes, and can empathise to how they might feel.

But the invisible wrist is also a motor, much like the invisible hand is. It motives people to look after those around them, once they have looked after themselves.

The invisible hand would fail society if individuals were only concerned with accumulating wealth, but we are also creatures of emotion, and most people once they gain an excess for their own physical needs, begin to fill an emotional hole by greater charity to others.

A real beauty of the invisible wrist grows from the diversity of human connections. One person in the city can relate to another of the same religion in the country, an elderly man can relate to a struggling young teenage from the same small home town, a lover of theatre can donate to the development of it. Age, culture, locality, common tragedy or abuse are all potential bridges.

Let us not fear the invisible hand of self interest. Just because the government lets us be free to be selfish, doesn't mean we will be selfish - for attached to the invisible hand is the invisible wrist of alternate self interest.

Related Keys: 05-LIB 11-SUP 15-LIM 17-PRO

Footnotes
1. Adam Smith - Wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#Investments_.26_Choice
2. May 2006 Java earthquake - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2006_Java_earthquake

Article 04: Free Market Essentials

what a free market needs to deliver the goods

I am a big believer in the free market as the best system for a prosperous society, however, I wouldn't consider the market as truly "free" without the following elements:

Justice - businesses and consumers free from physical intimidation, fraud or dishonesty

example: A retailer of fruit would be wary to set up competition against a long established supermarket if it knew there would be no protection from, or fair punishment against, death threats to them.

Equality - government to show no bias toward any entity

1. all entities free to enter a market

• when an industry has a monopoly or inflated prices, it inevitably attracts competition, due to the good chance of profits. The greater the profits margin the greater the attraction. Thus, if free entry is allowed the market will (in time) automatically correct exorbitant prices. Look at what competition such as Optus, Primus and Dodo have done for telecommunication prices.

2. any entity free to leave a market

• no company should be compelled to provide a service or to stay in an industry. Business should be free to choose what they sell, where they sell and when they sell.

3. no subsidization of industries by the government

• subsidies are basically the government taking the peoples money and using it to prop up industries that are not economically viable or have been mismanaged. It is a form of economic inequality before the law and retards business adaptation and flexibility.

4. no taxation on a specific industry except for reparation for damages (see price linking)

• this is the opposite of subsidisation - it punishes industries that are performing well.

5. no bailing out a company that goes bust

• just as business should be able to reap the rewards of a success, so also they should take the risk of failure. Why should the peoples taxes be used to fund failure, when they had no part in the decision making?

6. no investing in industries to start them up

• if a business has a chance for success and profit, investors will naturally be attracted.

Free Trade - the government not to inhibit buying, selling, deals and agreements between entities

• government and bureaucratic involvement only slows down and adds unnecessary overhead expense. (Yes, all departments come with a price tag). Businesses have incentive to work by the most profitable and direct methods - let them be reward for their ingenuity. The law is there to make sure citizens are not involuntarily harmed in the process.

Article 03: Why I Prefer the Preferential

In elections the Preferential Voting System is a real asset to democracies

Preferential is where on your ballot you number the candidates from your best choice "1" down to your worst option "5" (if there are 5 candidates)

Preferential voting gives a level field for new candidates and ideas, and breaks down the duopoly of a 2 party only landscape.

Vote without Risk

Example of the people of Colourville:
100 people live in Colourville. 40 like yellow and 60 like blue. Their current leader is Mr Purple, but behold, this election a new person is on the seen - Mr Tru Blue. Also running again is Mr Yellow. Without a preferential system most people would vote for the entrenched Mr Purple, even though they prefer Mr Blue. Their fear is that not every one knows about Mr Blue, and that if they don't vote for Mr Purple, Mr Yellow will get in with his loyal 40 followers. But since Colourville has the preferential system things are different - 40 people vote for Mr Blue (with Mr Purple as their second choice). The other 20 Blue People vote for Mr Purple with Mr Blue as their second choice.

So what happens? Since Mr Purple has the least primary vote (20) his votes go to Mr Blue bringing his total to the full 60 votes - vs Mr Yellow's 40. The net result is the people of Colourville got a leader closer to what they wanted. They got a real Blue rather than a Purple, even though he was less well known.

Party Preferences are "Suggestions"
It is common around election time for political parties to trade preferences -The Yellow Party may say to the Green Party "I'll put tell our supporters to put you second if you tell your supporters to put us second". Then they produce cards which are handed out at polling booths how to vote along their party lines. But you don't have to follow their "advice". Often their greatest rival they will tell you put last, so they have less chance of getting in. My suggestion is to do your homework, and if you vote Yellow, put them 1st, and then Orange 2nd and Ochre 3rd.

Remember preferential voting done properly keeps the big powers on their toes - and lets you vote for your best candidate without risk.

Article 02: Why Land is Bananas

Why Land is Bananas - 15 Oct 2006

Before the cyclone hit Queensland in March 2006 you would pay $4kg for bananas. Now you pay around $11kg. What bought this monumental shift?

This is simply the law of supply and demand. High demand + small supply = high prices. Small demand + high supply = low prices.

And when it comes to land we are a few bananas short of a bunch. What’s that you say? How can land prices be high when you know if there is one thing Australia is full of - its land? What about those broad meadows you saw recently? Did it sink into the sea one night – Atlantis style?

Well, not really. Even with the land right in front of your eyes, the reason remains invisible.

Let me introduce a couple of little men called “Urban Boundary” and “Land Zoning”. This mischievous pair, sponsored by the State and Local Governments has chained up huge tracts of privately owned land.

Land Zoning means the government tells you what it can be used for i.e. Rural, Residential, Industrial. The outcome of this is that a land owner cannot split up their block and sell it off. Urban Boundary is the artificial divide that the State Government has put saying “this is country” and “this is suburbia”.

So although you may own the land you do not control it. But what does ownership mean if not control? It’s like buying a car from someone and then finding in the glove-box a notice – “this vehicle may under no circumstance be driven on a Sunday”.

Now this Urban Boundary may sound good but you are not going to stop the Urban Sprawl unless people stop having kids. The other alternative is Sardine City as promoted by their other catch phrase – “Urban Infilling”. Basically this mean when you look at a map of the city and you see gaps, these are potential “urban infills”. Eventually this may mean the park around the corner from you.

One side effect of these policies is the reduction of block sizes. Now this is fine if you are retired and have an empty nest, but a 350m2 doesn’t leave much room for kids to kick a footy, and if Mum or Dad are cooking dinner and can’t take them down to the park, the kid probably ends up watching TV or playing a video game. Thus one of the consequences of the loss of liberty in the property market is its contribution to childhood obesity.

Consider also these points:
 at the least the State Government has a vested interest in the land tax it receives from land sales. The higher the land price the more the State Government gets.
 The LMC (Land Management Corp. – the land selling arm of the State Government) can make more money by the slow release of land than by flooding the market. It’s a bit like diamonds – they remain expensive because for a long time the market has been monopolized, and the supply deliberately limited.
 The SA government totes infrastructure cost as a reason for planning restriction. Yet houses can function independently (sewers, electricity, water) as they have for many people for many years. If you move to the country, I do not think you can demand the same services as in suburbia, but why not let the people weigh-up the infrastructure costs when considering to move? It is true that an upgrade of roads are required if large numbers move to more of the fringe, yet if the government doesn’t provide proper roads what does it provide? If large numbers are moving, let the funding move with them.
 I am not saying that farmers need sell their land, nor that a bigger block is for everyone, nor that people should be forced to move from the city. What I am saying is this is a choice for the people to individually make, not for government.

And when did the government ever start making a better choice for your family than you did?


Links:

No Opportunities on the Property Market - Aug 2006 - by Alan Moran

20 Keys for Governing

20 Keys for Governing

In this article I want to outline the key principles that dictate all my
policies. Included are 2 pairs of what might be termed sub-principles, meaning,
they really just clarify the fundamental principles.

I believe these keys can be broken into 4 main groups: the 3 founding principles
of a right to life, liberty and property, and a group of important considerations.

An important paradigm is required to correctly understand these keys. The fruits of these principles you do not have a right to be given, but should be protected from others taking, take for example, the first key (01-LIV) the right to life. If you were to sit on a footpath indefinitely, government or society should not be legally required to bring meals for your sustenance. However, it should be obliged to defend you from harm from gangs or such, or to give you justice if you were beaten. In the case of the second key, (02-EQU) Equality before the Law,
specifically employment by the government; no quota should be employed to dictate that a certain percentage of the police force should be women or of a particular ethnic group. However, when 2 prospects seek employment in the police force they should be chosen without bias to gender or race, and chosen on their supposed ability to fulfil the job.


Here then are the 20 keys briefly described:

01-LIV: A right to Life

Every person has a right to live and be protected from attack.

02-EQU: A right to Equality before the Law

The law should treat all consistently without regard to race, culture, gender, political view or wealth.

03-VOT: A right to vote

Each non-minor citizen should have the right to vote for, and participate in the government.

04-EDU: Education for Minors

This key I find the least justification for, yet I believe necessary to give each a fair opportunity for the ability to live a reasonable lifestyle, to accumulate property and participate meaningfully in government.

I include it primarily to save any group from remaining oppressed for more than a generation.

05-LIB: A right to Liberty

People should have all liberty, until it interferes with the liberty of another.
A trivial example: I have total freedom to swing my arm, but that liberty ends when I walk up to another person.

06-C+R: Choice and Responsibility

Individual choice = individual responsibility. If you are doing the choosing you should be taking the responsibility for that choice. Societies become less-effective when one group makes the decision and a separate group takes the responsibility.

07-M+L: Moral and Legal

Legal Law and Moral Law are different things. One of the fundamental errors we make in contemporary society is to mix these. All law should be moral, but not all morality should be legislated. Often our knee-jerk reaction to something wrong is to look to what the government will do.

Wrongs that are coercive in nature (i.e. one person forcing another – taking away their liberty) should have the safety net of justice by the government (if necessary). Unforced actions should not, and can be effectively addressed by the following 7 keys.

The separation of church and state is a physical embodiment of this key.

08-OPI: The right to hold and express opinion

On the level of a society this means freedom of people to express their opinions in the press, internet, flyers etc. It gives people the right to hold offensive opinions, criticize the government or support associations. It gives people the right to peaceably protest any issue as they see fit.

09-ASS: The right to Associate

All peoples should have the right to associate with any other willing person.
The next 2 keys are examples of this right.

10-UNI: The right to form Unions

People should have the freedom to form associations, unions, clubs, religions that do not strip others of their own liberty, and should be able to do so without recrimination from the government.

11-SUP: The right to Support

Individuals have the right to support whatever cause they please. In fact, charitable acts are a moral obligation of individuals of any society. Charities are a superior avenue for assistance compared with government assistance.

12-DIS: The right to Disassociate

Just a people have the right to choose their associates, it is imperative that individuals have the right to exclude others. By this I mean people should be able to form Exclusive Men’s Clubs, or a club that is particular to an ethnic group. Whether this is immoral or not is irrelevant, it should remain a legal right.

13-BOY: The right to Boycott

Boycott means to cease to deal with someone, more typically to cease to deal with an organization or business for moral reasons.

As a form of disassociating citizens have the right to choose whom they have economic relations with. Example: I don’t like Crinkleknee Supermarkets because I believe they treat animals inhumanely, thus I should have the liberty of not buying from them, with the hope that they will improve their practices.

Boycott is an effective tool that can be used to replace government intervention.

14-DSC: The right to Discriminate

Just as citizens have the right to support, they also have the right to discriminate. Companies, associations, religions (but not governments) should all be free to discriminate. Legislation can never control peoples thoughts or attitudes in any case, and trying to enforce this creates fruitless regulations. Better methods for addressing racism, for example, is education, virtue and support groups.

15-LIM: A Limited Government

A Governments job is to do only what a person or group cannot do effectively without it. As Thomas Paine said: “government even in its best state is but a necessary evil”. Government is indeed a necessity, but it is less effective in administering many services compared with the alternatives available.

Governments should therefore focus on its core functions (Roads, Defence, Justice, Policing ); doing more starts to impede on the liberties of the society.

16-JUS: Reparative Justice

Protection of life, liberty and property is a core function of government. Justice is necessary for reparation when these are stolen from a citizen.

Our judicial system is not what I would see as the ideal: it takes too long, and is too expensive.

17-PRO: The right to own and control property

Universally any individual should have the right to own property. Control of an object is a good indicator of true ownership.

Unfair taxation corrodes the right of the people. I believe the government should be very thrifty when it comes to spending the citizens’ money on their behalf.

18-VIR: Virtue

A government is only as good as its people.

Even the worst system of government will work if the people are good. A perfect
system of government will unavoidably collapse if it is filled with unethical citizens.

Though moral and legal (07-M+L) should be separated, always remember, virtue is
the glue that makes a society prosperous and happy.

19-FAM: The Family is the basic unit of society

No society survives long that doesn’t recognize the family as the basic building
block of society. As a whole, families are a superior way than government to
raising emotionally healthy people and good citizens.

20-TRN: Transition to a better Government

Changing from our current mode of governing to a better way cannot change overnight.

When evolving, consideration should be taken into account that industries have been subsidized, a welfare state created, a bureaucracy created.

This key is one of the trickiest. Just as a child doesn’t change to an adult upon 18 years, sometimes things need to be implemented in half measures or with temporary compromises.

A balance needs to be struck between taking things too slowly and taking things
too fast. Stability should not be the only consideration, but it still needs to be considered.

Stewart Glass
Aug 2006

Article 01: Junk Food Advertising and Kids

The best society understands the different roles of morality and legality. I define morality as that which is right, and legality as that which is enshrined as law. Both serve their purposes, and we should understand each.

All legalities should be moral, but not all morals should be legal. Let me give an example - we should be considerate of our neighbours, but there should not be a law that says we have to take them chicken soup when they are sick.

Legality's main goal should be to protect us from others. Morality teaches us how we should act to others.

When we start trying to make everything that is moral into that which is legal, we start trying to force people to be good.

There is a current debate about the advertising of junk food to kids. The moral law says we should eat healthful foods and exercise, with junk food an occasional occurrence. But should we legislate to make people eat healthily?

Kids are minors and are only developing decision making, so I will look to the parents. Do the parents of kids have their hands tied? Moral decisions like these should be left to people, in this case the parents on behalf of the kids. Will we legislate to control advertising of unhealthful foods to adults too?

What is the best way to a solution?
Sometimes we want to take shortcuts in life and we take knee jerk reactions.
Parents have a selection of non-legislative actions they can take to this moral issue.

Firstly, the TV could be limited. Parents can teach their kids by example and discussions about healthful foods, exercise, proper sleep etc.

The boycott is a powerful tool. Write to the worst offending shows or networks. Tell them that you and other boycott members will not be watching their shows, until they alter or remove that form of advertising to kids. Write to the junk food provider. Tell them you and the attached list of people will never visit until they stop advertising to kids.

What are the consequences of the wrong way?
When we take the shortcut, there are often invisible side effects.
Consider these:
1. Added bureaucracy in defining what is healthful or not
2. Court cases in defending the right to show an advert in a show
3. Junk food manufacturers taking alternate forms of promotion anyway
4. Taxpayers paying for added bureaucracy
5. Additional costs to manufacturers being passed onto the consumers
6. The rate of obese kids remaining the same

When we legislate things that should remain individual moral decisions, it comes from our desire to control others, even if it is well intentioned. And it doesn't work.

The separation of church and state comes from the idea of separation of the moral and the legal.

Lets leave people the right to choose poorly.