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.