General: What is the starting point for philosophical inquiry?

The issue of this essay really concerns the structure of knowledge. When we discuss the foundation of knowledge, its readily apparent that it starts with sensation > perception > basic conception > abstract conception. This hierarchy should be readily apparent to us if we observe children or reflect on our own childhood.
When humans are conceived they progress from subconsciousness to consciousness, but their existence as independent beings starts in a total unknowable flux of sensations, for which they have no idea whether these sensations are for them or against them. Birth allows them to rise to a new level of awareness, where they have use of the 5 senses:

1. Sight
2. Sound
3. Feel
4. Smell
5. Taste

Its only over time that a baby is able to integrate these sensory experiences into percepts. Percepts are the basis upon which we establish the Law of Identity - recognition that things exist with a certain nature. Another element of that law is that things possess to relationships to other things - sameness or difference. Our basic conceptual development allows us to distinguish attributes and differences between entities. Higher level abstract thinking allows humans to progress beyond the level of animals, where we are able to establish `causation` - that is direct and indirect relationships between things. The highest abstractions involve relationships between many concepts, eg. discussions of politics, which culminates in the confusion on such matters. But the contention with these issues often has less to do with complexity but lack of accountability for our thinking and evasion by those whom are wrong. Those issues pertaining to human values take on greater personal meaning than purely scientific facts. Issues like philosophy (ethics, politics) are fundamental to every human, so its not surprising that most people are defensive on such issues. Being wrong invalidates not just an isolated premise, but may well undermine the `whole world view`. By necessity - its always personal.

Philosophers vary in their starting point. Some take `the good of society` as the standard of value and construct a philosophical framework for human ethics from that. The error in this approach observed by Ayn Rand is that proponents of it subsume a certain relationship between men - an ethic of self-sacrifice or servitude to the state. This thinking has dominated philosophical thought for thousands of years, and was only questioned implicitly by the Industrial Revolution during the 1700s by the likes of Adam Smith. Smith and others were of the Utilitarian school that saw capitalist greed serving the `good of society`. Ayn Rand was the first to recognise a theory of values which frees the individual from `social` or state-sanctioned values.

Ayn Rand identified certain axioms (self-evident knowledge) that no one could refute. These axioms are:

1. Existence exists
2. Consciousness perceives that which exists
3. Law of identity - to be, is to be something, to possess attributes which distinguish one entity from another. The legitimacy of `reason` as a cognitive tool is closely linked to the law of identity - that entities have a nature, and cannot behave contrary to that nature.

Ayn Rand recognised that philosophers had to accept these basic premises.

I would invite anyone interested in philosophy to read the following books to get a better understanding of philosophy:

1. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (introduction to philosophy ideas)
2. The Philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff (well explained theory)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

Politics: Common political misconceptions

Political organisations or mere individuals are often categorised as `left` or `right`. I want to argue that this dichotomy is erroneous, as well as offering reasons why.

Contemporary thinking is that - the poles for debate lie between Socialists (extreme left) and Fascists (extreme Right). Liberals and democrats are identified somewhere in between and are interpreted as `moderates`. Foremost these terms demonstrate how words are misused. Lets consider a few here:

1. `Extreme`: What is wrong with being extreme. How can an adjective have any meaning divorced from a noun. It just shows you how concepts can be used to disparage others and avoid intelligible debate. No one would argue that extreme virtue, good health or honesty are bad things. In reality it depends on the context. Does to serve life or undermine it? Human thought has progressed greatly over the centuries. Contemporary values would be regarded as `extreme` by people living just 100 years earlier. The facts of reality have not altered such would demand a change in values, just we are freer today, thus able to redefine our values. There are 2 ways you can change your values....by implicitly accepting or `absorbing` contemporary values, in which case you are likely to have little self-efficacy since you have subjugated your mind to a pollster`s parrot. Or you can develop an explicit set of values where you pro-actively define the type of person you are. We all have a philosophy - the question is - `do we know thyself` and are we `being effective`.
2. `Moderates`: By what standard could `moderation` (the mean) be considered a standard of value. Either the facts support one position, or another, but what justification is there for accepting a consensus between 2 opposing concepts. Should we not embrace principles - which pertain to facts of reality - if they are based on natural laws? What basis is there for accepting anything but principles that pertain to human nature (philosophy) and the nature of existence (science).

Continuing on from this thinking, its apparent that contemporary thinking is flawed:

Left (socialism/communism) <<<>>> Right (fascists)

The problem with this thinking is the following:

1. Arbitrary concept: Both extreme Left & Right poles do not pertain to the facts of reality. The concepts are based on arbitrary constructs which stem from the fact that fascists have fought communists. But that saids nothing, since communists are prone to fight communist.
2. Common ethic: The Left & Right of politics have the same ethics fundamental. Political structures do not exist in a vacuum, rather they reflect the values inherent in a society. Both socialism (Left) and fascism (Right) hold the same ethical premise that all men exist for the sake of others. You can add religious values as well - all assert that humans should find virtue in the sacrifice of self - whether to the poor (socialism), God (religion), dictator (fascism) or the environment (greenies).

Its apparent from the above that there is one important measure by which politics should be measured - its the ethical relationship between humans. There are fundamentally 2 choices in principle:

1. Selfishness: Either humans live for their own sake, embracing their own happiness as their primary value, or
2. Selflessness: Humans exist only for the sake of serving others. Such an ethical premise treats humans as either sacrificial fodder (suckers) or perpetrators (bullies) imposing their standards on others.

But ethical concepts have a broader context as well. In fact there are several levels of thought pertinent to people`s relationship to other people, and it starts with the nature of reality, next we need to consider our relationship to reality. To elaborate:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality vs Subjective Reality

Epistemology: Reason/logic vs Irrationalism/emotions/passion/instincts

Ethics: Selfishness vs Selflessness

Sense of life: Romantic values vs Naturalistic/Tragic values

Politics: Capitalism vs Socialism/fascism

These philosophical poles are `extreme` by most people`s standards because people place little trust in principles, they are prone to distrust ideas and accept the operating mode of the moderates - the status quo, or the intellectual bromide of the mob or unthinking majority. We thus have liberals,moderates or democrats embracing some compromise between these 2 poles. No one would argue you should be too selfish or selfless, rather they would prescribe some moderate position between. The idea that you should pursue the middle-ground was advanced by Aristotle 15 centuries ago, but it really highlights human ignorance of human nature. Consider the following:

1. Metaphysics: We are arguing here for a subjective or objective reality. Its difficult for anyone to argue that they can evade the facts of reality (objective reality) because few people would walk in front of a speeding car, since they don`t believe they can escape their nature as a human being merely by willing it.
2. Epistemology: Epistemology embraces the study of human`s means of thinking & acquiring knowledge. People often justify actions at a level of abstract values by appealing to emotions. They fail to recognise the proper relationship between thoughts & emotions. Emotions are not tools of cognition, but rather the product of thinking in the context of our values and experience. The fact that we can have very different emotional responses in the same crisis is evidence of that.
3. Ethics: There is no question that human survival requires thinking - even at the level of a cave man. Cave men had to fashion tools and to hunt with a strategy in order to survive. Since prehistoric times, humans have recognised the benefits of specialisation, which has given humans a greater level of autonomy in terms of the productive process, but less independence in terms of his product output (because he is producing a surplus for sale). Whilst he necessarily requires a degree of empathy to meet the needs of the customer, humans have a hierarchy of values (incorporating survival needs & expressive values) they require from their productive work. It is by necessity that human effort is selfish, in the first instance to support his immediate survival, in the second instance to support his desire for self-expression and personal efficacy, and in the 3rd instance to support those values in others (generosity as opposed to altruism). There is no justification for supporting poor values (altruism) when there are more positive values to reinforce among those with conflicting values (moderates). The error arises because values are perceived to exist in a vacuum, as opposed to being considered in the context of a person`s life, their nature as a human being, or their previous experience. The subjective would argue that - if he wants it, its a value. The objectivist theory of value argues that values must be considered in 2 respects - the fact that we want it and why? The subjective theory permits a great many people to rationalise that they are helping others (virtuous) when in fact they are self-serving (in their pursuit of subjective values - since they have not earnt it honestly).
4. Politics: There is a dichotomy between capitalism and collectivism (any form of government that sacrifices individual values to God, nation, the poor or the environment). Capitalism is a socio-political system based on the protection of individual`s from the use of force or fraud by others. It embraces relationships between individuals and organisations on the basis of negotiation and contracts. Such a political system requires a high level of personal responsibility so its important that individuals embrace a set of values consonant with that political system. If they don`t, then they are embracing conflicting values at odds with the facts of reality, and at in opposition to their nature as human beings. Such conflicts underpin the modern liberal.

The intellectual framework for the modern liberal is a compromise between these poles. The liberal concludes that there are things beyond his control so gives some credence to a subjective reality, whilst respecting the contribution that science has made to human progress, thus reinforcing the existence of an objective reality. In epistemology, the liberal regards both reason and emotions as legitimate tools of cognition, not in fact recognising their proper relationship. For him there is thus a conflict between his thinking and emotions. The liberal takes the subjective theory of values which saids that anything a person values is in fact in his interests. eg. Suicide is a justifiable goal because he wants it, even if the decision is not supported by the facts of reality. He thus regards selfishness as greed and selflessness as kindness, when neither is the case. In politics the liberal supports free markets regulated by governments to preserve the interests of the poor and downtrodden. He is thus an advocate of a mixed economy.

Philosophical values also impact upon a persons sense of life - whether they are tragic or reflect favourably on others. Whether they are tight (suspicious & scared) or generous (trusting & confident) when dealing with others.

As a university student, the university press argued that the extremes were evil because capitalists sacrificed the interests of the poor for the rich, and socialism sacrificed the interests of the rich for the poor. This is nonsense. True socialists do sacrifice the interests of the rich, but they will similarly sacrifice the interests of the poor to justify their existence (retention of power). By way of example consider that taxation was imposed in the US upon the `rich` landowners, but now everyone is taxed (sacrificed). Nor is such sacrifice about problem-solving, abolishing poverty, its an end in itself. They would merely lift the standards of what constitutes poverty to justify their existence. In North Korea, socialism has forced the poor into poverty....the poor being anyone without special status or connections. The country is falling apart because there is no one left to sacrifice. They now resort to intimidating the western world to win food aid concessions. Its all about preserving their power....its never about defending the interests of the poor.....if it were, why would they be socialist. What precedent exists to support the practicality of socialism? Where? In which century? A rationalisation might be made here & there because a socialist government has coersed a remaining capitalist class (China), or production increased at the expense of other resource allocation (Cuba), but really there is no long term evidence of socialism (or collectivism in general) causing anything but destruction of wealth and personal egos.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

General: What is the role or relevance of philosophy?

When I was 18yo I was fortunate to have been introduced to philosophy. When first introduced to it, I responded with the same apprehension that grips most people. `Ideological nonsense detached from the real world`. I thought my suspicions would be validated by reading the first chapter. Boy was I wrong. In the last 18 years my interest in philosophy has expanded into philosophy, as well as enhanced my understanding of economics, science, politics, ethics, law, and other subjects.
That is not to suggest that the suspicions that people have about philosophy are not wrong. I came to realise that not all philosophies are the same, in fact a great many of them are destructive. Of course my support of a particular philosophy has to be questioned as much as any other. So I encourage people to learn philosophy so they can determine what system of ideas offers them value. I see the role of philosophy as giving people:
(1) A method of thinking
(2) A system of values
The benefits of philosophy are thus:
(1) Greater mental efficacy
(2) Greater understanding of the human sciences
(3) Greater confidence
(4) Greater personal effectiveness
(5) Greater curiosity
Results are by no means guaranteed. We are all introduced to philosophy at different stages of our life, and we bring to it a specific set of values cultivated by our own thinking and the environment in which we are raised. One of the greatest benefits of philosophy in this context is the belief that we can ultimately know, though we might struggle to understand ourselves and others.
Perhaps the greatest failing of philosophy is that it has remained a `pure` abstract science. To some extent it has been overshadowed by more applied thinking, by subjects such as `life coaching`. This is an unfortunate development because such self-improvement books lack the depth of understanding to be helpful to many people. That`s not to say they offer no value, just that their effectiveness or applicability will be undermined because they are concrete-bound. Perhaps there biggest failing is that they lack any code of ethics, or reference to a theory of values. A life coach might assert that we should pursue our values, whatever they might be, whether they are based on sound thinking, a reasonable understanding, or not. Pursuit of such values might be to impress others. Many of them in different chapters might highlight the dangers of such thinking, but its because some psychologist has asserted this premise, rather than reflecting any theoretical understanding of human nature. For this reason, a great many human scientists are left concrete-bound, unable to anticipate human behaviour. Its my pride that I can anticipate such events with greater predictability. Thats not to say I have mystical powers of prediction, just that the science of humanity offers some scope of predictability like the physical sciences based on cause & effect.

It is this understanding that prompted me to predict that the US coalition`s efforts to rid opposite in Iraq would fail, and that democracy was not possible for all of Iraq. There necessarily had to be a separation of fates between those that believed in freedom and those that believed in coersion, recognising that they are philosophically poles apart.

The road to philosophical understanding is not all gold. I have struggled over the years to deal with the fact that the great majority of people don`t think. I have spent alot of time bashing my head against the wall proving it. I spent alot of time being self-righteous, in the process demonstrating the impracticality of being right, and the practicality of being goal-orientated. But thats not to suggested I abandoned principles, but rather that I had to broaden their applicability to embrace my goals. For example, having shunned the education system that assigns an intrinsic value to `accredited` qualifications, I sought to become self-employed and prove my own effectiveness in the market. In the process, I have avoided working with people that dogmatically accept the status quo, an instead sought to produce my own results, even though they fall short of my effectiveness had I been working within a team. Its a far better solution than having others undermine your values.

I was never going to work well in a team with such values. I would have been vulnerable to their entrenched `social` values, and they would have been vulnerable to my reproach. I know in abstract terms that we are incompatible, and they have a `sense` that I don`t fit in their organisations even if I brought untold productivity to them. Assuming I would feel comfortable there....and of course I couldn`t because I`d have to downgrade my expectations.

Perhaps the most important premise I have grasped....somewhat belatedly... was the need for empathy and to be goal-orientated. These are related and critical to personal effectiveness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

Ethics: Culture & consideration

Returning home to Tokyo from the Philippines, I had a discussion with a Japanese businessman, a director of sales for some scientific equipment manufacturer. After we compared how many foreign trips we've done - he's been to 45 countries, I was trailing with about 30. But I am prone to exaggerate - lest I let those pesky Japanese get away with a heightened opinion of themselves.

The Japanese believe themselves to be the most 'civilised' people on earth by virtue of their technological sophistication, a range of social indicators (such as divorce rates, crime) and their consideration for others. Having visited, lived and analysed Japan for many years - I believe I know better. On this issue, a number of points can be made:

1. Generalisation: This is a general discussion of cultural characteristics, and thus does not reflect upon the behaviour of any specific individual.

2. Rationalisation: The Japanese are prone to engage in tokenistic displays of 'consideration'. They are particularly prone to be generous to foreigners because they want to prove just how 'civilised' they are. Ever since the British treated them as the 'yellow vermon', they have being playing catch-up with the west. Some are genuinely (in the collectivistic sense) apologistic for their treatment of foreigners during WWII. Still others just want to show they are better than you in a comparative sense. Its kind of like co-dependence. They need you to know they are better, and they want you to need something from them. Its the same dynamic as the unequal relationship between Japanese men & women.

The good news is that this man considered Australians and Canadians to be the 2nd most civilised people in the world. He held the popular misconception that Australians are lazy, when in fact, we just have different life priorities. I suggest Australians are divided between those that 'work to live', and those that 'live to work'. This is reflected in workforce participation rates, hours worked.
Certainly Japanese people do have some positives in their favour. In some senses they run their lives with a greater level of efficiency. They 'use' technology to greater efficiency than the west, and their ritual hot bath means they sleep better, so need fewer hours of sleep. They also sleep for 1.5hrs on the train to work - assuming they are one of the lucky 70% that get a seat.

All this begs the question of - by what standard to we measure 'civilisation' or the merits of any particular value system? I don't want to over-state my criticism of Japan, because it does have some redeeming features. Consider the pride that the Japanese train driver takes in doing his job. But look a little deeper, and consider the fear or pressure he carries in undertaking his task. Some 400 people were killed in Apr'05 in Osaka because a train driver was attempting to keep to schedule. Having recorded to 2 faults - he was reticent to record a third.

The collectivist ethic is at the heart of Japan. Not withstanding the official 'western-style' of governance, really its just a facade. No one campaigns for civil rights in Japan. There are hardly any lawyers, and few could afford them anyway. Japanese are anxious, their only reprieve being that its a shared sufferage with other Japanese. Any Japanese who live overseas tend to treasure their 'freedom' for a lifetime, and can never really settle into Japanese life again, unless they have a level of comfort higher than their peers.

The Japanese concept of a 'civilised life' is a combination of technological sophistication and Hollywood fashion. But deeper examination of the Japanese intellect finds it sadly wanting. Japanese people are required to fit into the national plan, to fulfil some function. They are not raised to question, but rather to serve their country, company and family first. In this task, they are prepared to tolerate significant hardship. They will live at home with their parents, tolerate jobs they don't like, wives they don't respect, children they don't love, friends they don't relate to - other than in their shared sufferage. That is what unites them.
As a consequence, Japanese people tend not to display personal ambition, thus are short of the drive or enthusiasm, or expression we see in the west. They have no self-discipline, but rather are motivated instead by a desire to fit in, to be accepted. There is of course an aristocracy which has different motives. I have met few people as ignorant as the Japanese. They are not raised to question anything, so they accept all. This undermines their analytical skills, and thus their intellect and curiosity. Little wonder they are not recognised for their scientific achievements. They are strong however in design because of their over-investment in product development. Consider that Sony might develop 20 types of digital camera to test the local market before it exports 5 varieties overseas. There is no analysis in product design - its grounded in experience. These over-investments come at the expense of the Japanese people. Contrary to popular opinion - men get the worst deal - suffering long working hours, hours commuting home. The housewife looks after the kids, meets with friends, plays tennis, and works if she likes, and may even take holidays whilst her husband is working. Japanese spending power is heightened because they live at home until they get married. In which case they are confined to a 40-80m2 home on a 100-300m2 property. But these shortcomings are not unbearable if you are used to them.
The West has to ask itself - is its decadence worth it? Would it be better to forgo consumption to boost productivity or output. I'm not suggesting sacrificing happiness, rather a new paradigm. Recognition that if we are going to pay tax, might it be better to ensure its spent wisely. If we are to sack workers, might it be better to do it in a way which does not decimate their self-esteem, rather than being solely concerned with protecting the company from the 'real', but unlikely possibility of industrial espionage. Why? Because actions have consequences.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pleased to hear comments or criticism if reason is the standard.

Ethics: To give or to take, and when?

We all confront the decision in our lives to act in our own self-interest, or to act in the interest of others. It might be argued that we perform acts that are hurtful to ourself & others, and sometimes mutually beneficial, but we are concerned with motives, not consequences. Seldom is it as simple as that, since we confront the following rationalisations:

1. Idealists: There are those people who place ideas above the facts of reality. They are called rationalists. Help ourselves with no regard for others: This is the philosophical path of the egoist, though there is often confusion over what constitutes an egoist. This misconception is best identified in the characters of the novel “The Fountainhead” (by Ayn Rand). People erroneously regard the hedonist as an egoist, but when you consider their values, they have a collective soul (based on social values). The true egoist is the capitalist who trades value for value. He recognises that others might gain a great deal from his trade, but helping others is not his motivation. Some would interpret the ‘greedy capitalist’ as a hedonist, selling faulty products, but actually the psychology is different.
   Help others with no regard for ourselves: These people often end up having panic attacks or nervous breakdowns, because their actions are self-destructive. They tend to define themselves as ‘victims’ and they are contemptuously disregarded by others. The physical symptoms of their condition (anxiety) is usually sufficient motivation for them to change, though it might be a piecemeal rationalisation. Limited control rather than a need for total control. Such a person can only function because they give primacy to their spiritual values over their personal (renounced) needs. Though spiritual values are rather empty without some earthily ‘gain’, and that comes in the form of control. Control over their tasks, other people. Anxiety requires rationalisation of those responsibilities.
2. Empiricists: These are people who are suspicious of ideas, and thus only trust concrete facts they can perceive. This group includes the pragmatists and skeptics, people motivated by practicality. It’s a rather twisted philosophical position, or should I say inverted or implicit. It involves defining a moral system to achieve the result you want. The problem is that it turns knowledge on its feet, stealing an ethical concept to draw a political solution. The problem: Practical – by what (ethical) standard of value. It subsumes pre-established knowledge of what you want to practice. So what works for some does not work for others. Here are some popular schemes:
   Libertarians: The best example is the US libertarians who believe in free, unfettered markets. They don’t care why you do, so long as you concur with the ‘invisible hand’ benefits of markets. As a result they have no moral guidance when it comes to issues of ‘market failures’. They end up falling prey to liberalism. The result is that the organisation has a religious faction, an anarchist faction and an atheist faction (if they will tolerate them).
   Economic Rationalists: The term I coin to counter those that opposed ‘economic rationalism’ years ago. Unsurprisingly it never had a satisfactory conceptual grounding. It was a wholly negative smear campaign. Eg. Australian Labor Party.
3. Enlightened souls: I’m not aware of any word that captures the ‘integrated world view’, but basically I would consider them to be people that seek an intellectual view of the world, but its grounded in facts and experience. Its not based on lofty ideals detached from reality (context-dropping or definition), nor isolated facts detached from conclusions. It would involve looking up to heroes (romanticism), but also looking down with empathy (naturalism). I can identify 2 modes of thought in this group, and linking this to psychology (hierarchy of values), I would suggest the approach that people take in life depends on their life experience (‘sense of life’). Those people with a tragic (malevolent) sense of life will help themselves before they help others. Those coming from a benevolent life experience will take the more generous option of helping others to achieve goals. Either way its selfish, but goal-orientated rather than phrenetically self-centred.
   Help others so they can help us: You might think this is hardly a practical philosophy if you have got nothing. But some clever souls out there take into the ‘guilt’ factor, displaying their lack of capacity to give, hoping to benefit from the reciprocity principle from those with the means. Eg. You give them $1, and guilt might see them give you $100. Pride would at least see them give you $1. Perceived stinginess might see you receive $2. Cynics might see it this way. Others might see such people as impractical idealists, and others as fellow idealists. Its easy enough to determine their position. To assess their integrity, you need only talk to their neighbours, and find out what they are like when they are not in need.
   Help ourselves so we can help others: Psychologists have long recognised that humans have a hierarchy of needs. Critical to their survival are such values as food, water, air and shelter. But once we are satisfied, even these become surpluses with greater utility to others. Luxuries are things we can totally do without. Its compatible with our hierarchy of values, as when people feel confident, proud and accomplished, they often feel generosity, thus willing to invest their surpluses in others. Economics would argue that the utility of these incremental surpluses is lower so it makes sense to give our surpluses to others.

Ethics concerns itself with how people act. Politics deals with organisational structures to regulate human behaviour. Our executive government broadly has a monopoly on the use of force, though some would argue that this authority is vested in various arms of government, eg. Police, the judiciary, immigration, railway police, etc. However, let’s presume the worst, that their values are aligned, whether these are to uphold the same shared values, or to preserve their own power.

The question is then, should members of society be forced to adopt a moral system, and if so, which one? Morality pertains to those choices for which we have a choice. If we are forced to be ‘moral’, then we can’t claim to be virtuous, can we? Yet we often praise the ‘courage’ of soldiers or survivors (like Stuart Diver at Thredbo) for surviving an ordeal. But are they so courageous? Often they are not presented with a choice. Of course the media likes its heroes and crises, as it creates great stories.

Ever noticed how the tax office asks you to sign your tax return. In the process we are agreeing that we have made an honest declaration, and have attached the required information. There is however the presumption that this is a voluntary agreement between consenting adults. Having been audited, I can assure you they are really nice people! Great inter-personal skills. But of course you have to pay tax because there is a gun at your head if you don’t. Well, that’s when you ultimately run out of choices. Ouch! Don’t go there! I’m sure their must be better ways to avoid paying taxes.

People either accept the established political process because they believe in the values, or because they perceive themselves to have no choice. Facing a confrontation with a formidable authority, they ‘roll’. For the sake of this essay, let’s all be ‘cowards’ and comply. Again, to ensure I can finish this essay tonight, let’s accept that we have no ‘real or effective’ choice about our form of governance, and just ponder a few ideas.

Is there a conflict between the moral and the practical? People often say that ‘socialism is good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice’, or the paradox ‘capitalism is cruel, but it is the most productive form of government’. Then of course, there is the liberal, who attempts to ‘pea-shoot’ the ‘best’ elements out of each system……to reach a comfortable ‘compromise’. Should a philosophic belief be of this world, or a mystic revelation? Should be based on a set of values based on our understanding of human attributes (science) or based upon how he is (psychology, naturalism)?

Should a moral set of values enforceable? Above I have identified a range of ethical positions that a person could take. All of them require coercion by governments – after all that’s what governments are for. Clearly if there were no consequences for ‘destructive’ behaviour, bad behaviour would be rewarded, and the planet would be ruled by cave men instead of politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe I should define my terms so you can distinguish the difference. Naa!
The Christian proverb ‘turning the other cheek’ is a case in point. But then I’m sure you could quote a contrary verse. If it worked, there would be fewer sectarian Christians around, and the Middle East would be the intellectual centre of the world still – well that is where they learned to count! The decimal system came from the Middle East. They were also the first to have slaves and prostitutes, so they are quite a progressive people.

So the question is – By what moral right does a person (or group, or government) impose force upon another? Democracy has the symbolic and ‘psychological’ threat of power, but whilst that makes it practical (by a cave man ethic), does it have intellectual legitimacy. All of the ethical systems above are based on the use of force. Some are based on the initiation of force (socialism & mixed ‘liberal’ economies), others on a retaliatory use of force (laissez faire capitalism). So what then are the source of rights? Are they:

1. Social contract: An agreement entered into by individuals at the age of 18yo. This might involve people having a choice to join a socialist system or a capitalism system at age 18yo. There might even be provisions to buy your way out. Practical? Should people be tied to agreements made at age 18yo, enslaved to a system they never really understood. Can be no worse than a system like the current one where you have no choice?
2. Alienable right: An entitlement derived from the nature of man. Such a concept is fine if it’s based on a realistic understanding of humans, and its broadly accepted. Eg. Humans are rational beings, so governments should protect their ‘intellectual’ choice or values, so long as they don’t breach others ‘rights’. Otherwise it would involve a contradictory or unprincipled application of terms.
3. Democratic Right: A condition granted or withdrawn at the permission of the duly elected government. Such a right places people at the behest of executive government. The question is – Can we be assured we know what we are voting for. Consider that we don’t know how others are voting, and MPs vote as ‘blocks’ (sometimes factional), and voting can be reactionary. Should a ‘majority’ of voters have the right to impose their terms upon a minority, particularly given that by no standard of truth can the ‘majority’ be said to have greater legitimacy.

In conclusion, I am left with the belief that we should put aside those philosophies which date back to cave man times, which are pre-date the intellectual development of humans, before science and really any great understanding of human nature or the world we live in. It was only in the 19th century that psychology was recognised as an independent science. Admittedly philosophy had been around for centuries, but it had done more harm than good.

Its about time the human race required more of itself, and stopped looking upon their fellow men as suckers (having more than you) or with contempt (because you are burdened by them), whether materially or psychologically. Capitalism is the only system of government where individuals engage in relationships on the basis of choice, and mutual recognition of value. It is indeed unfortunate that capitalism has had such ‘non-intellectual’ foundations, because the consequences has been the psyche of ‘them & us’ we have witnessed between workers and entrepreneurs. Its created fear and contempt. That negative sense of life was missing in early American colonial life because it the early nation was earning large profits, and everyone was capitalising on it. Developed nations need not miss out on such opportunities if they dismantle the ‘entrenched cultural values’ that inhibit them. The US distinction is that it has no ‘entrenched culture’ despite its 400 history. Its always recreating itself. Europe, Japan and other medieval cultures have required authoritarianism or revolution.

Ethics: The call for responsibility

In a prosperous society, we often see calls for the government to rein in the unsavoury elements of free markets. We are talking about the vendors of products & services deemed to be contrary to the values of the 'moral majority'. These products & services include:

1. Pornography
2. Drugs
3. Profanity

Opposition to these activities stems from these 'moral crusaders' right to impose their values on others. Remember that ponography, drugs and profanity cause no harm to others, at least in themselves. It fact its only the attempts by the authorities to regulate or prohibit them which has caused proponents of these activities to escalate the fight to violence. Critics argue that without restraint pornography and drugs would be marketed on TV, and 30% of the population would be falling over themselves on hallucinogenic substances. Really?

The reality is that we would know alot more about our community if the industry was unfetted. People are on drugs, buying pornography, using profanity for reasons. Banning such behaviour does not change it, it merely drives it underground. Its a symptom of values. It might give comfort to those people who don't want to see it, but the reality is that it does exist, and it contradictions those people's pretentions of wanting to do something about the problem. These people avoid the issue by living in the 'right suburbs', or in security premises. But the consequence of prohibition is theft and more serious crimes. These people need treatment, not a prison sentence.

Proponents of 'social responsibility' are absolute hypocrits. There is the attempt to engage with people before they descend to a point where they are engaging in these activities. The reason is that these people need a crisis to vindicate their 'moral righteousness'. They would have a panic attack if there weren't drug addicts to save. They are not about solving problems, they are about 'giving' to assert their moral superiority. In fact their values are the cause of the problem, not the solution. What we need is 'personal responsibility' (or self-reliance) not 'social responsibility'. Social responsibility sends the wrong message entirely, and that message is distilled from an early age with peer pressure, social alienation, guilt and reinforcement of other social values. Social values undermine people's self-esteem by undermining their intellectual independence. When we learn explicitly or implicitly that personal values have to be renounced for the sake of the group, then we undermine people's capacity to hold personal values. They values become social, so they compare themselves to others. People become paralysed by fear of the group, fearing alienation from it. We see this in street gangs and cults, but its present to some degree in secular religion, community groups and other organisations such as political parties, where the personal values are vetted by 'group thought'. We don't see these people committing suicide or over-dosing, but these are only the highly visible symptoms. What about all those people who are not accountable for their actions, who are not responsible for their lives. The first step is becoming a victim, according to contemporary values, the next step is to become a parasite on the guilt and responsibility of others. People need not perceive themselves to be bad. You treat people how to treat you. But parasitism cures nothing, in fact it rewards unhealthy behaviour. So where to people learn to live delusions like the drug-induced high. They learn that in the group. Its no accident that drug takers have 'collectivist' souls.

The enemy of individualism is the collectivised, entrenched values of conservatism. Its more harmful then the white supremacists and Muslim fundamentalists. Conservatives and liberals represent a suspension of principles. The solution is for people of principle to highlight the practical consequence of principles with reference to real life situations. Be goal-orientated rather than self-righteous, emparthetic rather than succumbing to overt-moralism. People have a different context to you. If you've had the good fortune to have good parents, understand that it takes time to change. Its a long path to change. Preserving your own integrity is the best way to fight the 'cult of irresponsibility'. The first step is not fighting terorism in the Middle East, that's the end of the world. The first challenge is removing the 'contradictions' from western values. If we don't get it, how can we expect the Middle East to get it. They have not 'lived' the Age of Reason (Industrial Revolution) as we have.

Ethics: The cult of materialism

The western world has been in the midst of a economic boom since the early 1990s. We have experienced a speculator rise in asset prices (shares, property, art, etc), making people richer beyond their dreams. The question is - Is this a good thing? History tells us of the boom-bust cycle, and there are people arguing that this boom is no exception. There are also people telling us that things are different this time.
The positive factors are:

1. Opening up of the Russian, Indian and Chinese markets
2. Solid growth in productivity
3. Deregulation of international trade with the reduction in tariffs
4. Deregulation of financial markets, resulting in more competitive costs of capital

The negative factors are:

1. Interest rates and inflation are at record lows
2. Debt levels in western countries are at record levels
3. Wage restraint is showing signs of weakening at a time when productivity is also declining

The culmination of these factors will be a decline in demand and higher costs of capital. Markets move in short & long term cycles. The year 2005 is likely to a temporary pause in growth, so the boom can continue years on. At some point however, the global economy will come to a sudden halt. These slumps have typically been associated with plummeting asset prices, resulting in foreclosure and bankruptcies.

In the wake of this crisis in confidence, there will be calls for greater regulation, market greed will be blamed, as well as free markets that permit this unrestrained prosperity. This has been the 'conventional wisdom' of financial collapses in the past, and its simply wrong. On this point, several points can be made:

1. Capitalism is only as efficient or effective as the market structure and participants allow it to be. If market structures are poorly conceived, then we see a distortion in market outcomes. This creates a disparity in market power, positions protected by vested interests, often alligned with the government of the day. Outcomes that place the rights of some at the expense of others is fascism (not capitalism), and importantly the rationalisation is that these interests serve the interests of society.
2. Capitalism is a market structure, yet it does subsume a code of values. A system which allows participants to negotiate value for value in free & unfetted trade is based on an ethic of self-interest. Free trade can only occur as long as the rights of participants are protected. It is the role of governments to protect ALL participants interests, not just to serve the interests of those parties that allign themselves with the government. 'Greed' is attributed to market participants, but where is the evidence to suggest the package of values related to 'greed' is caused by capitalism, since its clear that people participating in markets have very different values.
3. Values are sought by market participants. What a person seeks is a reflection of their philosophy. The market structure does not account for personal tastes. The market certainly facilitiates the pursuit of self-interest, but that leaves open their 'theory of values', what they actually desire or want to achieve. Do they take pride in producing an exciting new product, sleeping with every girl they meet, or giving the proceeds of any success they have to community charities, or some combination of the above. Any number of characterisations are possible, and a great variety exist in any market.

The question is thus - How do we go from a prosperous society to a demoralised, destitute market. The answer is philosophical.

1. Hierarchy of values: Everyone has a hierarchy of values. We start off valuing the basic necessities of life. The food, water & shelter that gives us security. Subsistence living gives us that. It defines our relationship to the world. They are values we ignore at our own peril, so we don't. The next level of values are

Politics: US intervention in Iraq is justified

The US intervention is justified for the following reasons:

1. Self Interest
2. Preservation of the legitimate interests of Iraqis
3. Illegitimate government - implies the Initiation of force by Hussain regime

Its unfortunate that GW Bush is a religious man because it confuses a great many people as to the legitimate reasons for US intervention in Iraq. I'm not a religious man, but it amazes me that any Christian could support the war, if the following statements are to have any meaning.

1. Thou shalt not kill......presumably that extends to Iraqis....turn the other cheek, etc.
2. Thou shalt not judge others...lest the first stone be cast at you. >> All action requires a choice, and thus implies a moral judgement.

Dogma aside, lets get back to reality.

The US is not a charity. It's role is not to preserve the lives of other nation's people's at the expense of its own. It is legitimate for the US to intervene in tyrannical states if the 'rights of any people' are threatened. That's its choice, not its obligation, since the US is no one's slave. Iraq, until the US established democratic institutions, was a brutal autocratic regime. It had gased the Kurds, financed terrorist activities outside Iraq, as well as brutalised its own people.

The US was criticised for only being interested in Iraq because of its oil resources. This is a legitimate strategic interest for the US. It would be understandable if the US did not intervene in countries like Zimbabwe because it has no strategic interest in that country. There is a strong case to be made for diplomatic intervention or sanctions however. Should Iraqis have control of their oil. Only as long as its controlled by good government, supported by a duly elected 'representative' government.

This will not be a short war by any means. Critics of the US will gain support when people realise that this war will not end for years. Why? Because there are too many parties in Iraq and neighbouring countries who will resent any success the US and the new Iraqi executive have. I anticipate that terrorists (or fundamentalists) will continue to mount bomb attacks and the like against the elected government for years to come. In cases, they will retain their 'fundamentalist' tag, but others will become more pragmatic, and will demand protection money in return for not blowing up pipelines. Domestic security forces will patrol pipelines, power stations, refineries, oilfields and other infrastructure, whilst expatriates and 'civil Iraqis' will survive & prosper in secure compounds.

Critics will argue that the US has waged an unwinnable war, but they will have lost sight of the most important issue - Iraqis will be free. Just as Israelis are free, and Palestinians are not. If you think Palestinians are free, venture into the capital city and say you love GW Bush. You will now be able to do that in Iraq. The tides of 'legitimacy' are turning. Notwithstanding the inconsistencies of US foreign policy, the great majority of Iraqis will be grateful for US intervention.

Politics: The problem with democracy

This essay is a discussion on the mixed premises underpinning democracy and how they constrain human progress. This essay will establish the following:

1. People accept democratic outcomes by default
2. Democracy is a socio-political system based on flawed premises
3. Democratic principles highlight contradictions in social values
4. A meritocracy - the basis for a moral society
5. What might a meritocracy look like?

Dissatisfaction with democracy

We live in a world where a great many people are dis-satisfied with political outcomes. Most people seem to blow off their frustrations by evading the problem all together, as if its an unassailable fact, beyond question, 'a fact of life'. Notwithstanding the notion that democracy is participatory, its hard to accept inefficient government. This is not an isolated occurrence, rather ineffective government is symptomatic of ALL democracies, though clearly some are more ineffectual than others. eg. Democracy in India has delivered very poor outcomes for its people.

We have witnessed undemocratic governments perform better than democratic governments. To a large extent the stronger growth in these countries has been achieved because of cheap labour, but this is just part of the story. I'm not an advocate for authoritarian states, tyrannical or benevolent, but I do recognise that, an authoritarian state can implement policy with greater integrity than than democratic states. Why? Because its outcomes comes down to 'one mind' rather than an attempt to integrate the fragments of many minds, many interests. In conclusion, democracy is a valid socio-political system if REASON is the primary standard, and democracy a default standard. There is no escaping the need for democracy. Better to preserve the structure of

Criticism of democracy is often countered with spirilous presumptions - like anti democracy presupposes for form of tyranny, but I am suggesting an alternative - REASON. Democracy is a socio-political system that vests executive authority for government in the hands of elected officials whom are deemed to represent the majority of the electorate. Having voted for an elected official, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Competency: How competent are your elected officials? Elected officials are usually professional politicians with

Fundamental flaws inherent in democracy

People often take the view that those frustrated with democracy could only wish to impose their own views on the rest of society. But this critique assumes that values are subjective, and herein lies the fundamental flaw underlying democracy. The 'subjectivist' accepts the view that we can't be certain of anything, or very little, so we are obliged to respect the views of the majority if we are to live in harmony. Depending on the extent of their 'subjectivity', these people accept that ideas are rough approximations or totally unreliable as knowledge.

Inherent flaws in social values

Social values are a set of values accepted by the majority of people. Social values are based on a 'subjective' concept of truth and values, where 'what's right for you is right for you, and what's right for me can be whatever'. It defies the fact that humans have a nature, that when humans defy their nature, they are in fact acting contrary to their happiness or self-preservation. Drinking poison, taking drugs are examples of living a life contrary to your nature. Over-exertion is another, selflessly sacrificing your life is another.

Social values suffer from the same fundamental dilemma. Whilst they might be negotiated or generally agreed in a society, that are contrary to our nature. Their harm is not readily apparent because they are abstract, but consider the impact of 'welfare'. It meets the immediate survival needs of recipients, but it subverts their hierarchy of values. The benefactors clearly have already been subverted.

Origins of flawed social values

It is not surprising that humans still retain their 'collectivist, tribal' values when you consider our origins. Historically the survival of the human race was tied to the group, and its equally as pertinent that humans have gained a great deal by co-existing. eg. trade, education, social relationships. The nature of these relationships have changed over time. The nuclear family is the result of greater independence or self-reliance.

The basis for a moral society - a meritocracy

If human values are to evolve, to progress the mediocrity of the masses, then constitutional reform is critical. Reason needs to be the fundamental standard of value (truth). If this is going to be established, then parliaments have to structured to achieve that value. Concrete ways in which this can be achieved is:

1. Voters given direct access to parliament through 'vested interest groups
2. Parliament operates as an 'open forum' for opinions from various vested interests, ie. parliamentarians
3. An independent person determines the legitimacy of the arguments presented
4. Speakers are obliged to support their arguments with evidence
5. The number of parliamentarians who support an issue does not legitimatise the premise.

A concrete outline of a meritocracy

There are a number of reasons why this can be so:

1. Our socio-political process undermines the rights of individuals
2. People have unreasonable expectations of what is possible
3. Our socio-political process is fundamentally sound, but inefficient

I would argue that to some measure all 3 of these factors are true. Yet there is a fundamental 'issue' common to all of these issues, and that is the flawed theory of values underpinning our democratic instititutions. By that I mean there is no objective concept of truth. Principles are dispensed to the ideological dustbin, as the 'majority', or anyone whom claims to speak for it with some 'legitimacy', holds the power to dispense their authority. There policies need not be reasonable, they might be pandering to the lowest common denominator, yet people accept that they have a legitimacy sanctioned by the 'majority'. No accountability is necessary, no intelligibility is necessary. No valid protection of rights is possible. Principles have no substance when juxtpositioned next to arbitrary assertions.

You might well ask - if it smells like a fascist society, why isn't it? The reality is - it is. It lacks compelling leadership (unlike the periods under Napoleon & Hitler), and leadership is somewhat more fragmented, but don't under-estimate the potential power for ambitious souls to orchestrate a campaign to enforce their values. You might well ask - am I not doing the same? Forcing my values upon others. I'd make the following distinction. I'm seeking your understanding, not your blind acceptance. Ever been to a political meeting where they espouse popular 'non-thinking'. They want to be accepted, liked, so they are unlikely to be contraversial unless there is a dire emergency giving them a convenient rationalisation. The other distinction is that I'm not expressing ideas that INITIATE force upon other human beings. I'm fighting for the rights of individuals - the smallest minority, where rights consistute alienable recognition of the sovereignty of your body & soul. This is contrary to popular social concepts which presume to arbitrary manufacture rights like 'the right to education' (and that would be a bad education) at the expense of those who are required to fund it and teach it. Its a philosophy of victims and perpetrators. The sad fact is that most people regard the perpetrators as practical. But by what standard? Show me a thief that can have pride in his work? If he could, would he not rather be a productive member of society.

This state of affairs is the culmination of historical philosophical developments. Truth is considered to be subjective, at least that is the presumption of our democratic system. Democracy equates truth with numbers. If the majority believe it, then it must be true, or if its not, then it may as well be, because if we oppose them, we'll have more guns at our head. As the Japanese say 'Shou-ganai' meaning "That's life!" - well its there's and a great part of it was ours. But it has not always been that way, for them or us. These societies - East & West - have migrated by default more than by any coherent philosophy. Are not ideas supposed to have some basis in society? Outside the field of politics, we certainly accept as much. We can grasp the concept of a car, possessing mass and movement, having momentum and thus the capability to kill us. We cannot afford the subjective luxury of evading that knowledge. We'd be dead if we stepped in front of one. Even on-lookers would be acknowledging the objectivity of 'our' shared reality. "Why didn't he see the on-coming car?".

But politics is different. Why? Well, not just politics, but philosophy. Its different because its abstract and its personal. When our ideas conflict with others, we are not just conflicting with isolated, concrete premises, easily substituted for our values, we are undermining fundamental concepts of a person's being. Even on such trivial knowledge, people can be quite defensive or self-righteous. Should their thoughts come into question, alot of people feel vulnerable. The implication is that they start to question the efficacy of their own mind, their ability to survive at some level, and that's before they have reached a value judgement about their own self-worth. Their pride is bruised, and perhaps at a deeper level, their self-esteem. Criticism is thus regarded as demoralising, hurtful and vindictive. It is thus the reason why we accept the need to avoid such confrontation. Conflict can also alienate you from peers if you are in the minority, as I tend to be.

I must confess that alot of people regard me as quite cruel because I have strong opinions which I spare no energy to suppress. Why? Because I don't think anyone every achieved anything by thinking they were wrong. Our capacity to know is limited, but it doesn't warrant skepticism. There is a great deal of knowledge we can be confident about if we critique it. But few among us live an 'analysed life'. Many would argue its not practical.

There is no question that there is a need to be 'practical', but what is the implied standard here. A thief might rightly be regarded as practical if the acquisition of property is his standard of value. This is the accepted logic of today - that being a thief is 'impractical' because you might get, or will eventually get caught. The best example of this is wartime attrocities, or the Rodney King (L.A.) riots about 10 years ago, when seemingly 'good people' looted stores in Downtown LA because they could get away with it. The only reason we remain in a civil society today is because people don't think they can get away with it.

The implication is that 'the truth can hurt' or even ill-conceived ideas if they are not critiqued by the defendant. Evasion and diplomacy then become the standard of engagement. But is that a good standard? What is wrong with being wrong when it offers you your best chance of getting it right. What is wrong with being upset? Is that not the role of emotions to tell us when we are doing well (happy) or poorly (sad/depressed) in life's struggles. Since when was comfortable numb a compelling option? Who made 'ducking and hiding' the commonly accepted wisdom. Since when was honesty a dirty word. Of course, its not, so long as you don't hurt anyone. But then my mere presence can make anyone shudder. I've made a few Seven Day Adventists run for their lives. Glad to do it - its all part of my Community Improvement Program.