Procapitalism Op-Eds. 2004 --- 2006.
December 01, 2006 ... Israel as an EU member.
Whilst public interest has been focused on the debate over Turkey's accession talks to the EU, it is seldom realized that a more suitable EU member is Israel. Israel has a fully democratic government, a reasonably stable currency, a growing economy, a proper judicial system, recognizes property rights and contracts, and has its own army, navy, and airforce backed up by its own industry. In addition, the Jewish community across the EU are not engaged in subverting member state governments, but have contributed hugely to the intellectual and financial well being of these EU member states--centuries before an EU even existed. Israel also takes part in the Eurovision song contestant, and has won it. And is also a member of the UEFA.
Israel joining the EU has been promoted by former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, former Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, and at least two Italian MEPs are campaigning in favour of a future Israeli membership. It has been suggested that eighty-five percent of Israelis would support EU membership and that the Israeli government is warm to the idea, too.
In spite of all these positives, the EU prefers to think of the closest possible integration that is just short of full membership, since public acceptability of full Israeli membership is greatly coloured by the ongoing middle- east conflict, by way of which, Israel is constantly demonized as the malign aggressor in the conflict, always disproportionately beating up on the downtrodden Palestinian militants and Lebanon's Hezbollah. In truth, Israel represents the frontline against radical Islam which too many EU member states are morally paralyzed to confront. For what radical Islam currently lacks in military hardware capability it more than makes up for with internecine deviousness, suicidal self-sacrifice and long-term determination.
There is also the issue about how Israel's Law of Return would be compatible with the free migration of citizens within the EU. But since Germany, Finland and Greece, etc., have similar immigration laws, free migration within the EU would be compatible with Israeli law. This is because a right to EU citizenship is not implicit, but simply enables EU citizens to freely cross EU borders so that they can live and work. Even so, the EU in general, may not wish to open its borders to the entire Jewish diaspora, and Israel may not wish to open its borders to European Muslim immigrants.
November 01, 2006 ... Flag of conevnience.
'Democracy is like a streetcar. You ride it until you arrive at your destination and then you step off. ...Thank God Almighty, I am a servant of the Shariah'. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.
It is altogether a good thing that Turkey's membership of the EU is being vehemently opposed by Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel. This is not because Turkey is a threat due its Islamic philosophy-of-faith versus the western European Christian philosophy-of-faith, but is a threat because its political élite in consort with foreign actors is using the democratic process to infiltrate radical Islam into what is the government's sphere of influence and, at the same time, weakening Turkey's military, by way of EU restrictions on its historical ability to counteract the power of an unsuitable though democratically government. A fact which has not escaped the majority of Turks who feel utterly let down by inappropriate support from U.S. diplomats for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's government.
It is generally agreed that democrats work to realise a change for the better within a system supporting freedom, and that radical Islamists work to change the system to subvert freedom. This has been the case with Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan who, over the last four years, has spoken of democracy and freedom, but has steadfastly used democracy to wage a sure and deadly assault on freedom. For example: After a European Court upheld the ban on headscarves in public schools, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan stated that such a decision was wrong because the Court had not consulted Islamic scholars Then, in May 2006, Turkey's chief negotiator Abdullah Gül took part in the ongoing EU accession talks and demanded any reference to Turkey's secular educational system be removed from the negotiations.
This assault on secular education is an important tactic for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan because it has been traditional for students to make one of three choices: 1. Enroll at a religious academy--Imam Hatips and subsequently enter the clergy 2. Enroll at a vocational school. 3. Matriculate at a secular high school, proceed through university, and then pursue a suitable career. But making Imam Hatip qualifications equivalent to high-school qualifications has enabled Islamic students to enter university and qualify for government jobs without ever studying western values. In the face of opposition from established university rectors, the Turkish parliament simply established fifteen new universities. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan assured foreign diplomats that the goal was only to promote education. But Turkish academics voiced fears that the aim was to enable the hand-picking of political henchmen who would overwhelm the academic board.
Another example is the passing of legislation to lower the mandatory retirement age of technocrats which may result in the replacement of almost half the judiciary with the strong possibility that judicial independence could be drastically curtailed along with any decisions levied against the government. And, if only to underscore this, a radical Islamist in protest at the aforementioned headscarf ban, gunned down a high-court judge.
In addition, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has quietly replaced the vast majority of the banking regulatory board with officials from the Islamic banking sector, with Saudi Arabian involvement very much suspected.
All across the EU we are faced with radical Islam aided and abetted by EU-member states, foreign governments, and pretenders to the throne, in its goal to use democracy to subvert western culture and freedom.
Democracy in the hands of tyrants is the death of freedom. By voting for Procapitalism you can avoid this outcome.
October 03, 2006 ... Keeping the poor in their box.
'Central Banking is now put in the same class with modern plumbing and good roads: any economy that doesn't have it is called "backward," "primitive," hopelessly out of the swim.' Murray N. Rothbard: What has government done with our money.
Whilst it is vital that the tax burden is massively reduced for the proper functioning of wealth creation and the subsequent good outcomes, it is also vital that lower taxes are accompanied by removing the government's ability to control the value of money by way of the central banking system and its monopoly over the minting and printing of money.
Tax cuts are always a crowd pleasing stunt to win votes--as the old-Conservatives know very well--but since it is always governments purpose to expropriate money without scaring the horses, government only has to debase money by printing and minting more of it in order to regain what it lost by way of the tax cuts.
Consequently, the poor stay poor and get to go off and fight needless wars in even poorer countries.
(For a thorough explanation about how this works, please read Professor Rothbard's short e-book which has been kindly made available from the Mises Institute. It is recommended that the .pdf is downloaded for convenience).
Because Procapitalism understands this issue more than any other European party, this is yet another good reason to be voting for Procapitalism.
October 01, 2006 ... Environmentalism is homegrown terrorism.
'The natural condition of man is extreme poverty and insecurity. It is romantic nonsense to lament the passing of the happy days of primitive barbarism.' Ludwig von Mises.
Environmentalism has become a philosophically consistent consolidation of Conservationism, Preservationism, and Neo-Marxism with the goal of implementing massive bureaucratisation and regulation to subvert freedom and coerce wealth from any possible source by using the powers of government.
To that end propaganda has been put into overdrive to terrorise voters into believing that the world is doomed because of global warming brought about by carbon emissions, and to viciously demonise anyone who is of a different opinion. (Some readers may recall the 'new ice age' scares of the nineteen-seventies.)
It is possibly true that high levels of carbon emissions will modify the natural change of the climate, but it is definitely true that the climate is always changing as a consequence of nature and without any predictability about how severe or benign any change will be. The major contributing factors to climate change are the earth's oceans, the imperfect orbit of the earth around the sun and the tilt of the earth towards the sun.
Nature is something we have no influence over. But anything which can be attributed to man is immediately seized upon as an opportunity to raise taxes, and create laws of political expediency which are willfully and viciously used to criminalise, and to destroy or hamper freedom of opportunity. This is what Ming Campbell, David Cameron and others really mean when they invoke environmentalism for the good of the planet.
The proper way is to implement laissez-faire capitalism so that the government and those who wish to be a part of it would be properly limited with respect to what they can do. For example, the government would not be in a financial position to ensure the supply of fossil fuels from foreign sources by way of military intervention. This would mean that fresh opportunities, on a free market basis, would be encouraged to create new and more efficient technologies for power generation and transportation. It would encourage better building practices to be adopted so that transport would be simpler, and flooding would be reduced or its effects made inconsequential. Introducing high-rise buildings incorporating domestic, retail and commercial space would be a sound possibility.
Procapitalism hold that freedom and freedom of opportunity is the hallmark of government concerned with the wellbeing of the planet and society for the present and future generations. The environmentally friendly alternatives, on the other hand, hold that tyranny implemented through coercion is the hallmark of government concerned with the wellbeing of the planet and society, for the present and future generations. Such an alternative is the hallmark of the failed state.
Yet another great reason to vote Procapitalism.
September 01, 2006 ... Immigration works.
The United Kingdom greatly benefits from mass immigration because it brings in labour wiling to work for less than the minimum wage. This is important because an economy can only grow and prosper whenever division of labour and productive activity is at a significant and expanding level and where wages are determined by the free market. Which the black-economy represents in contrast to the legitimate economy.
In addition, the larger the population, the higher is the incidence of those with inventiveness and entrepreneurship, which, as a consequence, increases the likelihood of demand for labour at all skill levels. It also creates a meaningful demand for investment capital.
The majority of the difficulties associated with immigration are of the government’s making. These could be resolved by:
1. Scrapping the minimum wage so that all wages reflect the free market conditions. By doing this, real wages, even when less in paper-money terms, would actually have more real value. This would increase employment since more low-skill jobs would become available to those currently unwilling to work for less than the minimum wage. And the competition from those with higher skills would be removed.
2. Abolishing planning regulations so that property developers would be encouraged to invest in the supply of affordable housing for rent or purchase.
3. Reducing NHS and social services with a determined drive towards privatisation would discourage immigrants coming to the UK to avail themselves of services which would not be free of charge.
4. The abandonment of the ridiculous impositions of environmental regulation and carbon-credits. These only serve to increase government and pressure group control by way of propaganda and unfair laws, leading to an enormously hampered economy and the erosion of freedom by eliminating rights. Ironically, a state of affairs the majority of immigrants thought they had escaped.
All of this would go a long way to defining ‘Britishness’ An unexpected byproduct of properly addressing the problems of immigration.
August 01, 2006 ... The Israelis are doing the proper thing.
In the few years prior to, and during the years of World War 2, the Jewish people became very aware about what the International Community can do for them and other races in a similar position, which is why, in this post-holocost era and with genocide raging in Darfur, for example, the Israelis have an Israel equipped with the military means to defend themselves against Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists.
Unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, the Israeli Defence Forces do not use Israeli citizens as a human shield and then go crying to those with an agenda to fulfil about disproportionate action and the loss of innocent life.
Firstly, the Israelis did not instigate the conflict between themselves and Hezbollah and Hamas and are not acting disproportionally. The Israelis are simply using their superior military power to vanquish an enemy with no regard for the life of the individual or that enemy would know that its provocative action would lead to its own destruction.
Secondly, when the citizens of a state willingly collaborate with terrorists they cannot be regarded as innocent casualties when the terrorists embark on foolhardy military adventures.
One man’s terrorist is not another man’s freedom fighter, as the milquetoasts of moral equivalence love to declare at every opportunity. A terrorist is someone with moral values based on a philosophy of faith attacking someone with moral values based on rational reasoning. It would be a remote possibility that someone with moral values based on rational reasoning would attack someone else with moral values based on rational reasoning. This is because it is in the self-interest of those with moral values based on rational reasoning to improve the value of their morality.
The terrorist, on the other hand, is acting on behalf of a supernatural entity for the collective good and has no self-interest to protect or moral value to improve. Thus the terrorist cannot be reasoned with and must be defeated by whatever means necessary with the minimum endangerment to oneself or those acting on our behalf.
Until the International Community gets to grips with the aforementioned, it should stay well away from the Israelis and their legitimate right to survive.
July 03, 2006 ... Democracy-equals-the freedom to do as you are told.
What are my freedoms and how are they being protected, without infringing on anyone else’s freedoms, are the two most important questions the voter should ask, when confronted by someone seeking their vote.
At the present time, no politician, in any EEC member state, would be able to answer these two questions, since all EEC policy is geared to sacrificing anyone’s freedoms to anyone else's demands , via the false, and politically expedient doctrine: democracy-equals-freedom. Which is why democracy-equals-freedom is being sold so heavily to those who don’t have democracy, and are expected to believe that democracy will enable them to achieve freedom. But, as they will quickly discover, the new boss is just the same as the old boss.
The most vociferous proponents of democracy-equals-freedom are the new wave of communists, socialists and fascists, since they do not advocate individual freedom. Instead, it is their philosophy that everyone--excepting themselves, if at all possible--must be subjugated to their spin, regarding the collective will. And any dissent will be met by an ever growing overburden of legislation-creep, with which, any dissenter can be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely, as a terrorist, if necessary.
Freedom for the individual within the state, is that which is specified in a proper constitution, which is untouchable by those democratically chosen to defend the constitution’s specified freedoms. Such freedoms are more usually called one’s Rights.
Democracy is simply a method. Freedom is a fundamental principle. Freedom necessitates that government be reduced to only that which is necessary to defend it, and nothing more, or one’s freedoms will be sacrificed to others’ demands.
Voting for Procapitalism is the surest way to guarantee that your freedoms are protected, without infringing on anyone else’s.
June 01, 2006 ... A moral argument for the modern Private Military Company.
The moral conflict between the protection of our freedom, and what is proper conduct in times of humanitarian distress in foreign failed states, can only be properly resolved by the modern Private Military Company (PMC).
On the days we remember and pay proper respect to the courage and loyalty of British and Irish soldiers who served, were injured, or died in combat since World War One, including the present conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the British government has always failed to acknowledge that too many of these soldiers were sent to fight for reasons which had nothing to do with our freedom.
Foremost of the British government’s duties is to protect every one of our lives, including that of soldiers, from the use of force by home-grown and foreign enemies. Like the rest of us, our soldiers are rational individuals who enjoy and take pride in the work of protecting theirs and our freedom, knowing full well that their lives are at risk in the event of conflict, and they do this because, like the rest of us, they refuse to accept to live as anything other than free men, free from enslavement, and terror.
Our soldiers must only be sent to quell conflict when our freedom is truly threatened, and the British government must make every effort to protect their lives during such times of conflict, by providing the proper equipment, protection, and rules of engagement, which do not demand that the lives of the enemy are of more value than those of our soldiers’.
But the British government has steadfastly refused to meet this obligation, and has repeatedly placed our soldiers in harm's way when no threat to the freedom of the United kingdom existed. For example to quell inter-tribal conflicts in Bosnia, and Kosovo. In addition, the current Iraq and Afghan conflicts are responsible for the hundreds of unnecessary deaths and unnecessary injuries of British soldiers, and has simply resulted in the creation and adoption of hopeless Iraqi and Afghani constitutions, and subsequent governments dedicated to the destruction of western culture.
For the British government to send our soldiers into conflicts, for which there is no clear threat to our freedom, and without proper equipment, protection, and rules of engagement, is a total failure of the British government’s responsibility to us and our soldiers.
On the other hand, the use of the modern Private Military Company, which conducts itself in a properly moral fashion, could be employed to enable suitable refugees from failed states to reacquire their homeland and to establish proper constitutional government (after we have done so ourselves, of course). Hundreds of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi refugees now reside in the United Kingdom, for example, so sufficient manpower is available to draw upon.
Other possibilities exist for the involvement of the modern Private Military Company , and they are being developed by the PMCs themselves, as is proper, for any private endeavour. A foremost example is the United Kingdom based PMC: Aegis Defence Services.
Yet another good reason to vote Procapitalism 1,2,3...
May 10, 2006 ... Self-interest and not self-sacrifice.
With the Afghan government busy with the implementation of Sharia law, the imprisonment of blasphemers and sentencing apostates to death, the coalition forces are busy defending their very lives from a resurgent Taliban, Afghan warlords, drug-lords and drug traffickers. And this is supposed to be a successful outcome for the war on terrorism and failed states.
This, of course, is the consequence of our philosophy of self-sacrifice and has nothing to do with the philosophy of self-interest, so often mentioned by the former Foreign Office minister, Jack Straw, and, soon to be, former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Who’s self-interest are they talking about? Certainly not that of the UK electorate and their lives, as they live in apprehension of another wave of suicide bombings, the rise of the British National Party (BNP), and the fact that dangerous foreigners like Abu Hamza, and his terrorist supporters’ Human Rights are rigorously promoted, as the hallmark by which our culture is defined.
To act properly in our self-interest, would have been to place failed states, such as Afghanistan, under our total control, until such times as the Afghans are recognisably competent to run Afghanistan in a proper fashion, without recourse to philosophies of faith.
All dangerous foreigners should be immediately deported to their countries of origin, along with their concerned lawyers, if necessary. We should be tearing up all international legal impediments to this, and resigning from the moral abhorrence that is the UN. and the Security Council.
We have the troops and the technology to act in our self-interest, but we do not have the properly directed will and determination.
May 01, 2006... Retiring the Judas Goat:
A Judas Goat is a trained goat used at a slaughterhouse, to lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. The term Judas Goat is derived from a biblical reference to Judas Iscariot. A most fitting soubriquet for the God-fearing Peter Robinson, as he moves towards accepting the hand of Sinn Fein, and retaining his and his wife’s thirty pieces of (adjusted for inflation) silver: their joint income from the Northern Ireland assembly, not including their Westminster MP payments, before the November 24 deadline. If you thought Tony and Cherie Blair were living it large, think again.
For Peter Robinson and his associates at the DUP, the proper purpose of government is to coerce money from the electorate. And if that requires sacrificing the electorate, the process of democracy and the proper purpose of government to satisfy a lust for money, which is not theirs, then so be it. The only intellectual hurdle to be jumped is gauging how much media-pedalled guff is needed to persuade their voters into believing that the voters’ interests are paramount.
The voters’ interests are contained in this understanding;
1. Democracy is simply a process which enables the government of a state to be peacefully changed, it has no intrinsic value, and its presence is not a mitigating virtue with respect to the moral value of a culture. In other words, a democratically installed tyranny is still a tyranny, as the Palestinian electorate are discovering with the election of Hamas, as the followers of Islamic Hizb ut-Tahrir would swiftly discover upon the reintroduction of the Caliphate, in a pan-Muslim world, and, as the Europeans and Americans would also swiftly discover if Christian fundamentalism came to significantly influence the political system, as a reaction to Islamic fundamentalists, etc.
2. The proper constitutional purpose of democratic government is to protect individual rights, and property rights form government, criminal, and extra-state intervention. It is not the purpose of government to regard society as paramount to the individual and to justify its existence by pitting the interests of a majority over a minority, or a minority over the majority, directly, or by way of extra-governmental interests, such as focus groups, pressure groups, or environmentalists, for example.
That being so, the Judas Goat, and others like him, would be properly retired.
Yet another good reason why the reader of this Op-Ed should be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism: 1, 2, 3...
April 02, 2006... No more business rates.
For any business to succeed, it is vital that all capital gained is available for plowing back into the business. The imposition of business rates severely hampers this from happening, with the consequent loss in investment and employment opportunities.
For a small office, not in a city centre location, business rates can account for not much less than £10,000.00 per year. This is £10,000.00 unavailable for the improvement of IT. The hiring of a trainee, or a freelance worker, to help with expanding the business. The ability of the boss to purchase or lease a better car or van to help with improving his/her business.
For a small manufacturing business, it would be common for business rates to be not too much short of £50,000.00 rising to £100,000.00 per year for a medium sized manufacturing business. And that is often with the bulk of the business rateable space being nothing more than storage. Again, this loss of capital severely hampers the proper expansion of business and employment opportunities.
It should also be understood that business rates must be paid, no matter what the prevailing trading conditions are, and how much profit, if any, is earned.
Business rates are a government imposed tax, a direct assault on property rights, imposeable with all the powers of the police and the judiciary. This tax is mostly used to fund mindlessly trivial government initiatives, heralded as being for the public good and the good of society, and make doing business even harder for the businessman. For example: The Department of Regional Development. The Department of the Environment. The Heritage Commission, for example. All these government departments can dictate to anyone, what, where and if, they can build or develop anything. It is often the case that capital in the form of temporarily idle buildings has to be destroyed by the expedient of ripping the roof off, and consequently exposing the rest of the building to the ravages of the weather.
Business rates are a scourge which must be abolished so that businessmen and women can get on with creating wealth and employment opportunities. This would also severely the scope of government influence and its ability to create initiatives that are ultimately destructive to our prosperity.
Yet another good reason why the reader of this Op-Ed should be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism: 1, 2, 3...
March 02, 2006... For Society To Thrive, The Rich Must Be Left Alone, by Professor George Reisman, Ph.D.
The UK's Philip Green has to resort to enormously elaborate tax saving schemes to keep the wealth he has created, out of the hands of the government, with force and legal power to take it off him. This applies to many others, too, and has now gotten to the point, where they are forced to consider registering as citizens of Monaco, so that they become tax exempt, but effectively refugees from their own country. As Philip Green already has.
This Op-Ed will make it clear why the government's persecution of the rich is stupid, and greatly damages the UK's ability to prosper.
March 01, 2006... Rust never sleeps.
Norman Tebbit, On Islam and the West,19th of August 2005:
The Muslim religion is so unreformed since it was created that nowhere in the Muslim world has there been any real advance in science, or art or literature, or technology in the last 500 years. We've leapt ahead in all material terms, but the Muslim world would say we have fallen down in all spiritual and moral terms. We have to accept our share of the blame and they have to accept theirs.
Whilst this quotation is easily applicable to an Op-Ed about the seven-hundred thousand Muslims in Great Britain, who would happily establish a Caliphate under Sharia law, it is more usefully applicable to the current debate about identity cards. This is because identity cards represent a significant example of ‘our share of the blame.’
Our share of the blame lies with the total inability of government to properly define our culture, leaving it open to the evils of political expediency and manipulation. This occurs for two reasons: The third-rate mindedness of present government, which acknowledges the principle of moral equivalence. And the adoption of the European model of government, which demands the sovereignty of the state over the individual.
In the first instance, no supernatural entity can be held morally equivalent or superior to the rational and reasoned morality of man. To accept this to not be so, is to inevitably cause the destruction of a civilised society. Which no Muslim culture, in the current era, can make any possible claim to be, since such cultures are intrinsically self-destructive.
In the second instance, the state and its elected government is not sovereign over the individual. Instead, the state and its government is simply the vehicle and the agent with which the individual has his or her rights protected: Individual rights including property rights, and where all property is privately owned.
With this as the proper basis for our culture, our culture would be properly defined. And the ludicrous ‘what if ’ scenarios presented by Lord Falconer of Thoroton and his third-rate minded cohort, would have no need to even propose a compulsory identity card scheme, at vast compulsory expense, with, at best, a might and very occasional usefulness. This is because the Islamist terrorists and other malcontents, could choose to go live someplace else, in a toilet of of their own making, or, our government would have totally justifiable cause to expel them, if need be, in spite of any Human Rights laws, which should be withdrawn from., anyway.
In addition, the proper definition of our culture would halt our slide into a dictatorship allied to a police force now more akin to a thought-police force, equipped with unprecedented levels of CCTV surveillance technology, and unrestricted legal powers to take DNA samples and fingerprints, at will, and with no recourse whatsoever, to have this data expunged, from what is reputed to be, the world’s most comprehensive criminal database, by the individual--according to reliable, and well informed reports.
Without doubt, only the implementation of capitalism, will truly set the people free. Unlike the socialist gangsters, who, with artful conmanship, only pay lip-service to the principles of freedom, in their zeal to command and control.
The rot really set in, almost a half-century ago.
Norman Tebbit: The BBC, 24th of February, 1990:
The word 'conservative' is used by the BBC as a portmanteau word of abuse for anyone whose views differ from the insufferable, smug, sanctimonious, naive, guilt-ridden, wet, pink orthodoxy of that sunset home of the third-rate minds of that third-rate decade, the nineteen-sixties.
This rot must be stopped.
Yet another good reason why the reader of this Op-Ed should be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism: 1, 2, 3...
(Note: Procapitalism shares no philosophical ground of consequence with current Conservative Party (UK) thinking. However, the above quote is consistent with the message of this Op-Ed, from a time, when the Conservative party stood for something meaningful.)
February 09, 2006... Anarchy in the UK and Northern Ireland.
Education, education, education as it is currently practiced in state funded schools across the UK and Northern Ireland, is tantamount to so many state sponsored terrorist training camps. This is because the education coercively provided by government has the effect of eliminating the ability of students to form proper concepts and have the ability to recognise and act on proper principles, so that they can confidently defend themselves from a wave of mysticism enforced by extreme, and often deadly violence.
A particularly improper concept is multiculturalism. An improper concept which has led to the improper principle of moral equivalence. This combination of multiculturalism and moral equivalence is creating a society incapable of knowing right from wrong, with the result that its ignorance is inflicting terrorism upon itself.
To address the problem, the feebleness of ‘Britishness’ has been proposed by a possible future Prime Minister. But this is simply surrender. The adoption of the philosophy of capitalism, and returning education to the private sector is the only real answer to this problem. This is because education will be divorced from political influence, and the parents of the students will be free to make proper choices.
(Also: Why state sponsored education equals state sponsored terrorism.)
February 01, 2006... Democracy is invalid without Capitalism.
Present day democracies are invalid because their core feature is the subjugation of others, by the government. Simply having a democratic process is worthless, as the recent outcome in the Palestinian vote, and the Northern Ireland peace process--too often cited as a shining example--has clearly demonstrated. The thugs are still in power.
For democracy to be valid, it must be tied to rights. Rights established from reasoned morality, with the individual as paramount. The rights and needs of society are not the concern of democracy. Only the rights of the individual is the concern of democracy, the consequence of which is to elect the best government to protect the individual's rights.
The nature of the individual with respect to society is catered for by the values inherent within the philosophy of Capitalism: The individual derives value by free and voluntary trade with others for goods and intellectual property, so that wealth is created and accumulated, from which, society benefits.
Until such times as the international proponents of random-democracy come to realize this, the world is in for an unnecessarily difficult time. But then, this is why the reader of this Op-Ed should be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism: 1, 2, 3...
The rights of the individual are protected by the law, which is also based on rational and reasoned morals and not pragmatic expediency, as is conveniently practiced by the current UK government in Northern Ireland. Under the flag-of-convenience: Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) financed by an American charity and other sources, that should know better, gangs of thugs roam the streets of Republican and Loyalist strongholds across the province, in lieu of the legitimate upholder of the law: The Police.
These thugs are engaged in the extra-judicial exiling of people from the province, and the intimidation of women with respect to their liaisons with men of of their choosing, for example. This is akin to the militia control of parts of Iraq and the Gaza strip. Parts of the world from which Sinn Fein and their Loyalist counterparts have strong philosophical ties, since such anarchy is their raison d'etre.
Northern Ireland is often regarded as a valuable proving ground for outrageous government policies before their introduction to the rest of the UK.
January 01, 2006... National affront.
David Cameron cycling to his office trailed by security in a high powered Jaguar car is wholly indicative of the shallowness of today’s Conservative party philosophy. Big business is going to be stood up to. The NHS is going to be retained and expanded. And Education is going to get another thorough going over to make it even less effective than it is at present.
All of these policies are doomed to failure since they are Socialist policies, which always fail. Wealth will be drained from the producers of wealth and a new generation of wealth producers will be completely discouraged unless they happen to be well ensconced in the machinery of government. Which, of course, they should not be. In effect the society of meritocracy of Margaret Thatcher’s tenure will be replaced by one of mediocrity in the battle for the centre ground and possible election victory.
The Conservative party has now become the New Fascist party. This is because the winning of an election, at all costs, is more important than creating a wealth of ideas based on sound principles from which to fight an election. ‘Principles?’ says David Cameron, as he sucks on a lemon and shackles his bicycle to a fence.
01/12/2005.. In the name of society.
To avoid another winter of discontent, like the one which preceded the last Labour Party wipeout and their subsequent eighteen years in opposition, the Labour Party have capitulated to the insane pension demands of the public sector workers. The same public sector workers, who, it is claimed, work tirelessly and selflessly for the good of society, but are willing to hold private sector workers and future public sector workers to ransom, to satisfy their demands.
With this kind of tyranny to contend with, there is scant possibility of those hard working entrepreneurs to bother themselves in the UK. Gordon Brown’s uplifting rhetoric about encouraging entrepreneurs is simply a desperate appeal to future producers of wealth, to sacrifice themselves, to the demands of others.
For government to act as the henchmen for public sector workers’ demands, so that the producers of wealth are coerced, by way of taxation and regulation, to relinquish their wealth for the good of society, is akin to fascism, which was supposed to have been done away with in 1945. Oddly enough, that’s when the Labour Party swept into power and sold the UK to the Americans for one-hundred billion dollars, so that their socialist agenda--which we are still paying for--could be implemented.
This is not to suggest that there are not tireless and selfless workers in the public sector. But the producers of wealth--the entrepreneurs--come first, since it is that wealth which pays for the public sector. And public sector workers ought to be working tirelessly and selfishly, for themselves, in the private sector, so that proper government and a more prosperous UK can be established.
01/11/2005... Nice little earners.
Government today is awash with regulations which cover many aspects of our lives. Most people live under the delusion that this is all to help protect their interests. But the interests most served, are those of the instigators of the regulations.
Bringing this aspect of government into sharp focus is the issue of MP David Blunkett and his extra-political activities, which, according to reports so far, have netted him in excess of £70,000.00 for nothing more than a few after dinner speeches, newspaper articles, and consultancy work about the nature of government regulation and how business can negotiate its way through an increasingly regulated world. Talk about printing your own money. These guys have it down to a fine art. And it’s all legal, since the same politicians who create the regulations, also make the law, which their law firms implement.
This, of course, is not government’s role The role of government is nothing more than to protect the people’s rights, for which duty it has the police, the armed forces, and the law at its disposal. Once government oversteps this limited role, it rapidly becomes a self-protecting entity, accountable to no one, justifying its existence by promoting fear and division amongst the electorate.
For MP David Blunkett and his ilk, it’s business as usual in the heart of darkness that is the Palace of Westminster, as the crippled London bombings’ victims of 7/7 fight for a just compensation from a government whose attention is determinedly diverted from its primary responsibility.
01/10/2005... Cease and desist... please.
With the IRA disarmed to the extent that everyone appointed to verify can be believed, we still have the ridiculous rant of the DUP’s Dr Ian Paisley to put up with. With nowhere left to go, and painted into a corner, by himself and his cohorts, the DUP, as the leading representative of Unionism in Northern Ireland, have now to face up to the fact that they are as unprincipled and as power and money hungry as their Republican counterparts, Sinn Fein. A fact more than well enough demonstrated when they accepted their MLA posts at Stormont, trousered the money and laughed all the way to the bank.
When one talks of a political vacuum in Northern Ireland, one only has to look at the DUP to understand what that vacuum is. A vacuum that can never be filled, without a drastic change in the currently unsustainable political values. Values that are really non-values.
Theocrasy is the fountainhead of Dr Ian Paisley’s lack of values, and since no Theocrat has ever, had any values consistent with the well-being of a free society, he can never be anything more than the vacuum he represents. He is utterly in conflict with himself and what he claims to represent, as a democratically elected politician. That being so, he is as unprincipled a democrat as his Sinn Fein counterparts, and for exactly the same reasons, in spite of the superficial differences, about which he and his cohorts protest too much.
01/09/2005... Mind the rights.
In 1948 the British, National Health Service (NHS) was established. At that time, Penicillin was barely available, and nothing remotely like the drug treatments and surgical procedures available today were envisaged, which can extend a patient’s life to well beyond that possible in 1948. When the NHS was established, people were not expected to live significantly longer than before, and its establishment was simply a way to rearrange the deck chairs, in a bid to promote social equality by the Labour government of the time.
The NHS currently employs 1.3 million people, and costs 76 billion pounds a year. No wonder the Americans want to avoid this financial black hole. In their case, a 1.5 trillion dollars (US) a year, black hole.
The fundamental problem for the NHS is that free treatment on the NHS has become a RIGHT. And the government is duty bound to protect the rights of the State. But the NHS is obviously not free, since it currently costs 76 Billion pounds a year to fund, and would cost much more to fund if key-workers were unavailable from impoverished third-world countries.
Attempts are being made to economise through more effective management. This is doomed to failure because the NHS cannot ever be made efficient. This is because: Free treatment on the NHS is a right, and the NHS must be funded by the government, through taxation. And the scope of the NHS is limited only by available knowledge and treatments. But the taxpayers don’t want to pay any more tax, yet insist on having the right to free treatment on an NHS overburdened with new developments and subsequent demands.
01/08/2005... International Orange
Within the space of a fortnight the City of London has been the place of two mass suicide bombing incidents. Fortunately--for Londoners and others from afar--the second incident failed to produce any detonations. As usual, the UK government does its land-of-hope-and-glory schtick to deflect attention from its abysmal record with regard to its primary function of defending the state from terrorist violence.
For the UK government to properly defend the state from terrorist violence it must first of all recognise that terrorism is violence--physical or psychological--visited upon a higher moral value from a lesser moral value. And that the western world cannot grapple with terrorism until it recognises that its moral values are mostly a skewed variation of the terrorists’. Which is why the Palestinian-Israeli issue is such a misrepresented example of Muslim grievance, and why negotiating with the IRA and its associates is a fruitless exercise. Blithely treating all morality as equivalent will not win any war with terrorism, as it is delusional behaviour.
Only when the moral values of the west are rooted in rationality can terrorism be defeated. This is because their will be a clear and valid distinction between the west’s moral values and the terrorists’. Only a Progressive Capitalism government can do this.
In the meantime, London underground drivers are being leaned on...
01/07/2005... Making poverty history.
For poverty to be made history it is necessary to abandon the hypocrisy and contradictions of the socialist-gangster politics, which prevails in first-world Western states. For such socialist-gangster politics to function, as they do at present, the developing nations must continue to exist under the imperialism-by-proxy, deemed good practice by the ex-colonial powers.
To sugar this poison pill for the citizens of the Western first-world, debt relief allied to foreign aid, is the carrot to the stick of democracy strong-armed into place. with no consideration for the quality of the underlying principles, for any democracy to be meaningful.
The democracies of China and Africa are excellent examples of how meaningless such unprincipled democracies are, such democracies being simply a convenient smokescreen for obnoxious and murderous dictatorships.
In these hopeless states, chaingang, slave-wage labour soiling its underwear at the 18 hour-a -6-7 day week at the workbench, with almost zero hope of acquiring capital, is what stands between present day Western first-world socialist-gangster politics and total collapse.
Without adopting Progressive Capitalism, there can never be a global improvement with regard to poverty, since Peter must always be robbed or killed to pay Paul.
01/06/2005... Freshly-dead Hippopotamus.
Barroso’s Law: The constitution expands to administer the bureaucracy deemed essential by the political elite.
Knowing that the rejection of the European Constitution by the French and Dutch electorate was based upon scant objective reasoning, José M. Barroso and his associates see no conflict in persisting with those that haven’t yet held a referendum. After all, if the European Constitution can be kept ideologically alive, there is a good chance that the required result could be finessed into place, or useful shards of it put into practice.
Cynical politics of this kind, is a perfect example of why the politics of today is no longer viable, and must be replaced by the politics of Progressive Capitalism. This is because a Progressive Capitalist Government does not exist to create more Government, but exists to protect the rights of the individual from foreign and domestic interference and to administer a rationally-just Judiciary.
With the scope of Government clearly established, the electorate would have a clear understanding about what they are voting for, and would be much more likely to make the effort to vote rationally, because hospitals, pensions, roads, and everything else to do with their social well-being would be the responsibility of their own -PRIVATE - endeavours, which they would value to have protected.
01/05/2005... Choices by eleven.
If a student is lacking in numeracy and literacy skills by the age of eleven, further education will be of scant value. In the majority of instances, the failing is simply because there are not enough teachers, and not because of disinterest by the parent or parents, or the student being significantly mentally or physically challenged.
At a primary school level there is absolutely no requirement to have all the teachers trained to beyond university standard, which, in itself, is no guarantee of quality. Instead, only a core of administration trained to such a standard and a sufficient number of classroom teachers trained to be proficient in primary level material is needed. This training would occupy no more than twelve months, at most, for those already numerate and literate.
A working student-teacher ratio of 7:1 would be adequate to allow the teachers to operate on a sufficiently one-to-one level with those students who are experiencing difficulty. Even so, this does not account for instances in which the student has problems that can only be effectively addressed by specialists: Severe dyslexia/dyspraxia, for example. But these students would be in the minority, and not a minority extending into the majority for the sake of excusing the lack of teachers, and other failings of a state system education.
At present, the state education system is all about expanding opportunities for educators—so called-—to line their pockets from state resources, with little interest in educating primary level students to the necessary level of numeracy and literacy. This leaves parents and voluntary After School Clubs to take some of the strain, without incurring the wrath of the state funded educators.
This is an intolerable situation, which must be addressed—in Europe and the United States—so that young students are not placed in the position of having no significant choices available to them in their post-primary school years. Only by privatizing education will the essentials of numeracy and literacy be concentrated upon in a rational fashion.
01/04/2005... Jackboot Central. The Bitter Pill.
The Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP declared - 18/05/2005 - that the Travelling community in the UK are acting unfairly in their use of Human Rights law to get around not being able to develop[ property and live on land that they own, because everyone else must apply for, and receive, planning permission from local government, before they are permitted to build and develop property on their land. On the face of it, this point of view appears reasonable. But, more correctly, the problem is simply that planning permission shouldn't be a requirement by anyone in a position to buy land and develop it.
Planning permission distorts the value of property by controlling what and where property can be built. Therefore, the value of one’s property is not based upon true market conditions, but upon the Government’s view of fair play, with respect to planning law.
In a Progressive Capitalist system: If you own it, you can develop property on it. So long as you comply with the principles of Progressive Capitalism
01/04/2005... The Bitter Pill:
Historical precedent has amply demonstrated that investing in the stockmarket is an effective way for one to increase one’s wealth over an extended period of time. But the stockmarket is not a sure bet, which is made even less so, if the consideration about what stock to invest in is given no more thought than betting on a dog at the track, or blindly following transient trends. To be successful, the stockmarket investor must have an adequate knowledge about what they are investing in, keep their investment in place for an extended period of time, and be prepared to accept the risk of losing their investment. Otherwise, the stockmarket is not the place for them.
For many reasons - chief of which is to enhance pension returns for institutional investors - Governments around the world have intervened in the world’s stockmarkets in an attempt to make it appear that investing in the stockmarket is less of a risk than it actually is. One of the worst instances of this intervention has been the creation of the crime of ‘insider trading.’
Victims of this non-offence - for example - have been: ImClone’s Samuel Waksal and Martha Stewart. And Ernest Saunders of Guinness. These victims of insider trading, have been the scapegoats for a crime that cannot exist unless they had been expressly forbidden, under contract, to not claim stock as part of their compensation package. The value of stock to any investor depends upon asymmetric knowledge. In other words: knowing the real value of the stock held at a given time, so that a decision can be made to hold or sell.
In the aforementioned examples, because their compensation and value of investment is based upon the market value of their stock, they cannot be obliged by other investors to undercut themselves, when the knowledge that they have and the others haven’t, dictates that they should sell to avoid a loss.
This is the bitter pill which must be accepted without question, when investing in the stockmarket.
02/03/2005.... The Right Wing Vs. The Wrong Wing.
Capitalism is usually associated with exploitative authoritarian regimes in which the individual is simply a statistic. In its narrowest sense, this is true. But within the overall context of Capitalism, the individual has the greatest freedoms of any political system, provided the individual makes reasoned choices.
At present, if there is a desire not to use Microsoft’s software, one can use a Linux or UNIX distribution instead, so long as one is prepared to acquire some basic knowledge. Therefore, a monopoly doesn't exist.
If one doesn't want to pollute the environment with their car’s exhaust fumes, there is an electric or hybrid alternative, usually at a higher price, but it exists. And with more alternatives purchased, the price will fall according to supply and demand, and not government regulation. So there is no need for any Kyoto treaty. In the case of America, it simply falls to the American people to decide upon an available alternative, which has beneficial implications for their environment, a reduced dependency on foreign oil, and the profitable exploitation of new technologies.
The same applies to the quality of the media: If one doesn't like what is on television or in the newspapers, simply switch the television off, change channel, or don’t purchase the newspapers. In a free market, the vendors soon get the message and change their practices. So thank you, Stephen Green of Christian Voice, and other theocratic thugs such as yourself, but one can can make one’s own mind up about how one wishes to be entertained.
Capitalism is separated from economics and religion, and the State conducts its affairs in a Laissez Faire manner. The individual has the right: to be selfish, to their ego, and to trade freely without interference from the State, so long as this is not counter to the laws of the State, which are ethical and based upon rationally reasoned morals.
This is the RIGHT WING. All else is the WRONG WING.
03/02/2005... The terrorist’s mandate.
One man’s terrorist is often considered to be another man’s freedom fighter, a view with considerable legitimacy because of the pragmatic and gangster politics prevailing in the world today, democratic or otherwise. Such politics, which denies the majority of morally determined choice, will always lead to circumstances in which the use of terrorism is the only option for those who are seldom any better than those they have a dispute with. And so the cycle continues, with groups such as the IRA being the determinator of whether or not political progress is made in Northern Ireland, for example.
Based upon morally sound principles the simple answer would be to exclude the likes of Sin Fein from any political dealings until such times as they have reformed into a viable political entity. But because of pragmatism, the Sinn Fein mandate is considered to have legitimacy. This pragmatic approach was also a problem when dealing with Yasser Arafat, etc. Elected or otherwise, leadership of this class simply has no legitimacy, because their mandate is the product of unreasoned choice, and should be regarded as being without mandate.
Only Capitalism avoids this problem, since it is based upon morally sound and reasoned principles. And a terrorist is easily defined as someone who is immoral, and is nobody’s freedom fighter.
01/01/2005... Less is more.
To have the right to healthcare, employment, or an education is nonsense. This is because the provision of these rights is dependent upon the availability of sufficient wealth for the government to tax, by whatever expedience, in order to pay for them, which is contradictory to the right of the individual to trade freely and own property.
By making a part of free trade into a right, free-traders are hugely discouraged, since the wealth created will be appropriated by the government to pay for the rights of others, who are often actively engaged in demanding their rights, without any inclination to create any wealth to pay for these rights.
Capitalism avoids this contradiction because the government’s purpose is to protect the individual’s right to trade freely, so that the wealth created may be applied to wealth creating opportunities in healthcare, employment, and education. By saying that one does not have the right to healthcare, employment, or an education, does not mean that one should not be able to avail themselves of these services. It simply means that one does not have the right to demand these services from others.
01/12/2004... Say no, to the Thought Police.
The notion of patenting software is creating a bit of a storm in Europe, especially in the Open Source community, because software is seen as an act of intellectual authorship and not an invention. As written code, software can already be protected by copyright in the same way as any other piece of writing. And, if the software's source code is kept sufficiently secure, Trade Secret law applies, too, as in the case of Microsoft’s Windows.
An invention normally applies to a physical entity, mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc., or a process of some kind, which can be used to create a tradable product.
The written specification for an aircraft, isn't an aircraft until it is actually built, for example. But software, although it is simply a form of writing, has the unusual attribute of being a viable product by itself, its creation/development often the result of knowledge accumulated from many academic sources and talented enthusiasts. This simply means that software is very often a product with a lot of unattributable ownership. As are the words and phrases used to compose a new book or screenplay, for example.
By patenting software in Europe, the possibility of malicious action against small enterprises creating new software products, by larger concerns, is increased hugely, as has been demonstrated in America by SCO and their malicious and unsuccessful legal action against IBM and many users of Linux. Small enterprises simply can’t afford to take out patents and defend them in international courts. Patent law - and any law for that matter - is so open to interpretation, misuse, and abuse, that applying patent law to software, will have an enormously damaging effect on the competitive development of new software.
Only patent lawyers will gain financially from the patenting of software. Copyright and Trade Secret law is quite sufficient to protect everybody’s interests - except the patent lawyers’ - and at no cost to the small enterprise. Which will increase competitiveness and keep software developers’ minds and meagre resources engaged upon the creation of good software.
01/11/2004... Hidden agenda.
An anti-racism march held in Belfast, 30/10/2004 was distinctive because of a lack of the ethnic minorities that have come to reside in the Province. One spokesman suggested that this was to avoid being recognised and attracting future intimidation. Sinn Fein’s President, Gerry Adams and MEP, Barbara De Brun were the most notable attendees, but said nothing.
A more plausible argument is that, although there is an unacceptable level of racism consistent with other areas of Europe, racism is not particularly problematic, but is sufficiently useful as a propaganda tool for Sin Fein to amass more support, since the racism that is prevalent, is mostly conducted by elements from the Loyalist/Unionist community. In addition, this lets Sinn Fein form stronger bonds within the European Parliament, with left wing/green political parties, to avail themselves of funds that could be better spent elsewhere, and to consolidate their hold upon our liberties.
This is not especially an Op-Ed about Sinn Fein and its progress within the EEC, and the failings of the Loyalist/Unionist community, but is more about pointing out how a prevailing situation can be used to advantage within a socially immoral system, running amok on an agenda of victim-hood and insidious self-interest.
22/10/2004... Klingon 101.
The newly expanded European Union must now cope with 25 different languages in terms of documentation, and translation at Parliamentary meetings. Seizing the opportunity to avail itself of cultural development funds, Ireland has decided to promote the Irish language and its requisite documentation at home and abroad. In practice, this means that anyone seeking employment as an Irish civil servant must have an accredited knowledge of Irish, even if it means doing without teachers and other professionals, as has recently been reported in the press.
Now this could be taken seriously if Irish was a language such as German or French, for example, which is actually in use. But Irish is more akin to Latin, in that it is essentially dead, except for scholarly pursuit, or by those with a personal interest. So instead of ensuring that available public funding is spent more prudently on the teaching of English, in its written and spoken forms, we have the Irish being literally compelled to learn a language which is of no use whatsoever.
In addition, this is simply an underhand way of pandering to an erroneous notion of cultural identity, Ireland should be looking to the future, and not be dwelling upon a past not too dissimilar to that of Eamon De Valera and a Volkish ideology dreamt up by a crazy Austrian and his propaganda machine in the early-to-mid twentieth century.
Promoting the spoken and written forms of Klingon would be no less fanciful an agenda, with the added bonus of being equipped for the 23rd century. Qapla!
© 2004 --- 2006.