Category Archives: Better Government

This article, KiS: government for the silent majority,  assesses numerous faults with the Australian government, but notes similar issues afflict most other democratic governments.  An entirely different approach to governance is proposed based on fundamental principles and applying many lessons learnt from restructuring both government departments and major corporations.

‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’ and modern ‘democracy’. NB if you like this post, check some others.

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control. The following articles provide evidence.

Will We Allow the Coronapocalypse to Bail Out the Failure of Socialism?

 

Will We Allow the Coronapocalypse to Bail Out the Failure of Socialism  By Thomas Luongo, Gold Goats ‘n Guns, 25 March, 2020

The fear over COVID-19 has gone ballistic. We have moved from rational precaution to mass insanity in a matter of days. The speed with which those seeking power are moving is astounding.

With each passing day another person is jumping up, Alexander Haig like, to assume powers they do not have to demand control over the population they legally govern.

And it always seems to be in places with a particular type of government. They are the ones with the most advanced social safety nets, most outwardly compassionate policies and the ones with the most corrupt and failing infrastructures.

They are the ones that have squandered the hard-earned wealth of generations while trumpeting their own wisdom and foresight. And now that they are facing threats they cannot possibly manage, they expect to arrogate even more power to obfuscate the fact that they have failed to provide even the most basic services for the trillions wasted.

You might think I’m talking about California or New York, and in some ways I am. But, in reality, I’m talking about Europe.Dust Mask for Kids,Ani…

Europe stands at the brink of monetary and economic collapse. Its rot is far more advanced than that of the U.S. and China. And because of that the spread of COVID-19 there can have the most devastating effects. Therefore they are justified in shutting down whole countries.

But the counter argument is also valid, if not more valid. It says quite clearly that by keeping the economy flowing, by keeping people productive and working you retain the infrastructure necessary to save more people than would die otherwise, despite the threat of transmission.

We are living through a time when the democratic socialist nation state, a concept less than three hundred years old, is on trial. How countries respond to COVID-19 will be a litmus test. And I can assure you that anyone not openly embracing full on Fascistic control over their countries will be lambasted as heartless do-nothings.

Why? Because we’re already there.

Any temperance exhibited by local leadership is met with hysterical cries of murder. We’re seeing it here in the U.S. President Trump, rightly, didn’t order a national top-down approach to COVID-19, he left it up to the states to handle.

Some have reacted like Europe. Others not. And the amount of vitriol and political axe grinding going on in the U.S. to this point is ridiculous. And again, I’m seeing it quickly becoming a cudgel to bludgeon skeptics by all-knowing, smug authoritarians seeing the opportunity to justify their worldview.

In Europe, for the past seventy years or so The Davos Crowd have been obsessed with creating a European superstate to entrench their own power at the top of an unelected bureaucracy.

But they have failed.

Their political union is failing. The economy of Europe is quickly imploding into something only seen in a dystopian science fiction movie. And they need something to keep the dream alive. From their perspective COVID-19 is the kind of deus ex machina that can save that dream.

Whole countries are being put on lock down, nominally, to stem the spread of a disease whose biggest threat is overwhelming a woefully prepared medical infrastructure not killing a large swath of the population.

But it’s not about compassion. Every dead Italian or German is grist for the mill of saving socialism from itself. The EU leadership is using this crisis right now to set up centralizing economic control over the whole of Europe by breaking the will of the German people in the face of a civilization-ending pandemic that, to date, hasn’t killed more people worldwide than the flu does in the U.S. annually.

By setting the wheels in motion to cancel cash, outlaw gold buying and digitize the entire money supply. How again is this part of saving lives afflicted with COVID-19?

Oh right, it doesn’t.

Congress is paralyzed by partisan bickering seeing this opportunity. They’ve overwhelmed social media with patent nonsense on both sides. The Republicans are wrapping themselves in the moral high ground of sending out UBI checks and the Democrats decry corporate handouts.

While I’m not interested in the least in seeing $1.8 trillion in new spending coming from the Federal government it’s clear this time the Democrats only blocked the first vote to play games.

And guess what? Not one bit of the spending is necessary. It’s just more socialist destruction of wealth through debt issuance while we all go broke sitting in our homes in fear of a bug.

Whatever happens, you can bet that whatever form of the bill passes, and one will pass, it will be materially worse than the one just shot down. Such is the way of ‘bipartisanship’ in D.C.

In the U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s response has been the most reasonable, refusing to shut the country down. But he may soon succumb to the insanity of newly-minted virologists on Twitter screaming ‘flatten the curve!’

It’s so painfully obvious that this is now a crisis actively being made worse to distract us from the root cause of the economic meltdown that was already here.

Our near completely socialized capital markets, the furthest things from free markets, are imploding because their multiple layers of Ponzi scheme have been revealed as fictions. COVID-19 just blew up their false assumptions.

They exist to support through bureaucracy and taxation the desperate promises of governments acting like absentee parents buying their children presents instead of being proper role models and leaders.

That’s what these ‘aid’ packages being discussed in capitols around the world right now are, just more unpaid-for promises of dysfunctional absentee Boomers, trying to buy our love for another day.

But, the truth is staring us in the face. The institutions of socialism are revealed to be inadequate. Make no mistake, as I said in my last article, that’s no reason to suppress your humanity. The threat of COVID-19 is real, but it isn’t existential.

And I applaud the diversion of our economic output to support fighting this disease and helping as many people survive it as possible. And that means not locking everyone indoors and shutting down their lives.

It doesn’t mean nationalizing every manufacturing plant to make N-95 masks and PPE. And it certainly doesn’t mean prepping the country for the suspension of civilian rule.

By turning the amp up to eleven on fears of a biblical plague they are doing what all good screenwriters do as the movie goes along. They raise the stakes. COVID-19, while by all reports is a tough virus to beat, isn’t world ending. But it’s being treated as such.

This isn’t The Stand, folks. It’s not the Simian Flu from Planet of the Apes. Yes, the hospitals and medical community will be overworked. They will need help. And we need to be able to provide that help however we can.

In some cases it means staying at home if you can. In others it means donating your time, money, energy to help your community get through this. And in still others it means being brave enough to show up for work.

But it doesn’t mean allowing power-hungry maniacs to run roughshod over us because we’re fearful of a plague we can name rather than the ones that dog us every year.100 Pcs Latex Nitrile …Buy New $17.98 ($0.18 / Count)(as of 01:35 EDT – Details)

But to sell this fear to us and save themselves, they keep telling us that markets don’t work. That individuals cannot be trusted. And that only the State can coordinate such a monumental task such as saving humanity from nature.

Because without the State we would be left in a Hobbesian state of ‘war of all against all.’

If you listen very closely to their carefully prepared hysterics you’ll hear the echoes of Agent Smith telling Morpheus that the real virus we are fighting here is humanity itself.

And that a little culling of the bad people who won’t get with their Brave New World is what we have to accept to survive.

In Europe they are cynically using this pandemic to lock down countries where the civil unrest was already at the breaking point — France, Spain, Italy.

The stories coming out of Germany now are designed for maximum fear. Chancellor Angela Merkel shook hands with the wrong person, she’s in quarantine. Germany has knuckled under, finally, to new fiscal rules. The EU commission is finally allowing massive government spending. The U.S. will authorize, in the end, tens of trillions in new loans, handouts, bailouts and bribes.

All to try one last time to paper over the broken promises and false hope of socialized markets to maintain the one-way trades of a few thousand oligarchs.

Because some pigs are more equal than others.

And when the worst of the COVID-19 spread is over. When the hospitals finally see fewer cases we will be looking at a much different world. The decisions we allow our governments to take now will determine what that world looks like then.

===================

Socialism: A Brief Taxonomy

Socialism, A Brief Taxonomy  By Allen Grindler, Mises Institute, 23 February 2020

There are myriads of words written about socialism, and yet lots of misconceptions about it still exist even in the minds of those who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The most striking and frequent blunders are the identification of socialism exclusively with Marxism, the confusion between the concepts of socialism and communism, and the claim that fascism and National Socialism belong to the right, to name a few.

It is necessary to give a comprehensive definition of socialism, determine the principal attributes that indicate belonging to socialism, and to classify the socialist trends on these grounds to clarify the concept once and for all.

The contemporary meaning of socialism often runs along the lines that it is a politico-economic theory in which the means of production, wealth distribution, and exchange are supposed to be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. This characterization of socialism emphasizes its important economic features; however, it cannot be considered a comprehensive definition. The wording implies a narrow understanding of socialism from the point of view of materialist and positivist currents of socialism but does not fully encompass the features exhibited in antimaterialist, anti-Cartesian, and Kantian members of the socialist family.

It seems to me that the most inclusive definition of socialism is as follows:

Socialism is a set of artificial socioeconomic systems that are characterized by varying degrees of collectivization of property, or consciousness, or the redistribution of wealth.

Notice that socialism is designated as an artificial entity, meaning that it does not occur naturally during the evolution of human society but is imposed on nations coarsely through the actions of activists.

This definition derives from the parsimonious solution of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of the twelve most relevant currents of socialism, and it meets the criterion of necessity and sufficiency. In other words, socialization of property, collectivization of consciousness, and wealth redistribution are necessary and sufficient causative factors that taken separately or in combination unambiguously define an ideology as socialistic and designate preferred paths to socialism.

Given these three main causative conditions, it is easy to identify and classify socialist movements in the universe of political philosophies. The nuanced distinction between socialist movements is explained by attributes that seem essential but not general enough to influence the grouping of political philosophy in one direction or another. At the same time, any of the following ideologies has at least one causative factor that fully characterizes the doctrine as socialist.

The generic realm of socialism comprises several ideologies, which, more often than not, have historically been hostile to each other:

Marxism is the particular and extreme case of socialism named communism. Marx did not invent the notion of socialism. The ideas of socialism were known long before Marx and indisputably influenced his worldview. Instead, Marx created the theory of “scientific communism.” Communism is characterized by the complete socialization of property and the total collectivization of consciousness. The orthodox Marxism has never materialized.

Marxism-Leninism, also known as Bolshevism, is a revision of Marxism regarding the scope and driving forces of the communist revolution. If, as according to Marx, the revolution should be brought on simultaneously in developed industrialized countries by the mass proletarian movement, then, for Lenin, the Bolshevik revolution might take place in a single agrarian country under the leadership of the vanguard of revolutionaries. Nevertheless, the goal of Marxism-Leninism was communism, implying total collectivization of everything and everyone. A Bolshevik coup succeeded in the Russian Empire, and the communist regime existed from 1917 to 1991.

Trotskyism is, in essence, genuine Marxism-Leninism, which tries politically to preserve its theoretical purity. Trotsky was a founder of the theory of “permanent revolution,” which posits that a proletarian revolution in one country should spread to neighboring nations until communist revolutionary transformations embrace the whole world. He criticized Stalin’s policy from the left, arguing that building communism in one separate country was a deviation from the original intent, that the expropriation of peasant property should have been completed immediately, and that the proletariat had been deceived and continued to be exploited but this time by the Soviet nomenclature. In general, Trotsky accused Stalin of betraying the ideals of the proletarian revolution.

Anarcho-communism also implies the complete collectivization of property and consciousness. However, the doctrine does not accept the Marxist idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the appointment of the working class as the sole agent of the revolution, and two stages on the path to a communist society. The anarcho-communists hoped to build a stateless communist society as soon as they gained power during the revolutionary war. Anarcho-communism was briefly institutionalized on the free territory of southeastern Ukraine from 1918 to 1921, during the revolution and the civil war in the Russian Empire.

Reformism or Social Democracy (Europe), also known as Democratic Socialism in the USA, is a significant revision to Marxism, which practically does not leave even the foundation of genuine Marxist principles. Reformism has been a mainstream form of socialist ideology and practice since the end of the nineteenth century. Redistribution of wealth and partial socialization of consciousness are the main paths being utilized by the doctrine. Socialism is supposed to be gradually built within a capitalistic society by methodically changing the socioeconomic laws of the land using parliamentary procedures. Great importance is also attached to the mental transformation of members of the society through the indoctrination of the population in educational institutions and the propaganda of the socialistic ideals in the mass media, social networks, and materials of pop culture.

Revolutionary Syndicalism (in Italy, France), Anarcho-syndicalism (in Spain), and Guild Socialism (in Great Britain) are non-Marxian currents of socialism, meaning that they did not adhere to the tenets of scientific communism. The main path to socialism is the expropriation of private property from its rightful owners, with its subsequent collectivization and transfer to the management of the labor collective. It was assumed that the fruits of labor would be exchanged in the market between various producers as well as between the villages and the cities. Anarcho-syndicalists managed to gain political power in Aragon, Andalusia, and Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39).

Fascism (Italy) is a non-Marxian, antimaterialist, antipositivist current of socialism. Italian fascism envisioned a new type of society that would supersede both communism and classical liberalism; it was conceived as neither on the right nor the left. However, the practical implementation of fascism was the complete socialization of the consciousness, the partial collectivization of the means of production, and unprecedented wealth redistribution. The means of production de jure remained in possession of the owners, but de facto they could not freely dispose of them. Fascism was imposed on Italian society from 1922 to 1945.

National Socialism (Germany) is a non-Marxian flavor of socialism, based on the racial and pseudo-scientific theory of the superiority of Aryans. National Socialism pursued complete collectivization of the consciousness, partial socialization of the means of production, and aggressive wealth redistribution as a method of achieving a socialist paradise for das Volk. As in any other totalitarian society, the state was the ultimate owner of the means of production, despite a de jure allowance of private ownership. Contrary to fascism, National Socialism did not believe in the antagonism between labor and capital and insisted on the unity of the nation in the face of socioeconomic and military challenges. National Socialism materialized in Germany and lasted from 1933 to 1945.

It should be noted that if a socialist current of any flavor is given sufficient run time, then, regardless of the chosen path, all causative factors will reach their maximum value. That is, in the limit, as mathematicians say, all means of production will inevitably be socialized, and the individual will be coercively subjugated to the collective. In this sense, such a seemingly mild current like democratic socialism is just as dangerous as all the other members of the socialist family.

Author:

Allen Gindler

Allen Gindler is a scholar from the former U.S.S.R., specializing in Political Economy, Econometrics, and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economic Cybernetics, Standard Data Systems, and Computer-Aided Work Design in the Khmelnytskyi National University, Ukraine. He is currently a private consultant to IT industry on Database Administration and Cryptography. As a hobby, he is interested in political philosophy, history, population genetics, and Biblical archaeology. He has published articles and opinion pieces in Mises Wire, American Thinker, Foundation for Economic Education, and Biblical Archaeology Review.

==================

Professors Donate To Democrats Over Republicans By A 95:1 Ratio, New Study Finds

Professors Donate To Democrats Over Republicans By A 95-1 Ratio, New Study FindsBy Jonathan Turley, Via Zerohedge, 26 January 2020

 

Diversity in hiring is the top priority of most colleges and universities. However, the effort to hire more women, minorities, and LGBT individuals notably lacks one group: ideological diversity.

It is well-known that most faculty are composed of an overwhelming majority of liberal and democratic members. However, this view, while generally accepted, is largely anecdotal. Now a new study by Heterodox Academy Director of Research Sean Stevens and Brooklyn College Professor Mitchell Langbert claims to have put hard numbers on that lack of diversity.

In reviewing records with the Federal Election Commission, they say that they found that professors gave to Democrats over Republicans by a 95:1 ratio.

The researchers looked at 2,301 political donations and found that 2,081 went to Democrats while just 22 went to Republicans. Only nine professors gave to both parties.

An earlier study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a 10:4 ratio. Business Management Associate Professor Mitchell Langbert reviewed the party affiliations of 8,688 professors at 51 of the top 60 liberal arts colleges listed in U.S. News and World Report’s 2017 rankings.

These studies magnify concerns for those of us who have objected to increasing speech regulation on campuses — restrictions that have seem to be more often applied to conservative students and speakers. Indeed, academics have at times been at the heart of such attacks on the free speech rights of conservatives on campus. In one incident at the California State University where assistant professor of public health professor Greg Thatcher is shown on a videotape wiping out the pro-life statements written in chalk by members of Fresno State Students for Life.

Perhaps the most unnerving controversy involved the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women.  She was convicted and sentenced for the crime.  Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. Faculty and student defenders attacked the pro-life advocates and one even referred to them as “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech.  Miller-Young should have been fired but was instead lionized by faculty and students.

recent study found at Harvard found that only 35 percent of conservative students felt free to share their views on campuses. That chilling effect is the result of not just open hostility to conservative voices on campus but a striking lack of diversity among academics in terms of ideology.

=================

Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016

Government for the Silent Majority

The KiS report – “Keep it Simple” – Government for the silent majority.

The full report can be downloaded as a PDF file: KiS full report 100316  The report summary and table of contents are provided below.

The KiS  report describes an Australian government the ‘silent majority’ of voters would likely have elected – if they had the choice.

Why?  Because because it would benefit them far, far more than any recent governments which have evolved since federation over a century ago.  Many would say most if not all aspects of government have gone downhill ever since.  Like a corporation that is failing badly, the Australian Government needs a fundamental restructure – a ‘root and branch’ rebuild based on the needs of 2016 and the future.

The report includes assessments of, and proposed solutions to, key factors voters expect their governments to lead and manage appropriately on their behalf such as: finance, debt, defence, environment, law and order, energy availability, pollution regulations, immigration, taxation, healthcare, recreational drugs, education, infrastructure and related planning approaches.

Please note this report was written nearly 5 years ago and is in dire need of updating in some areas.  However, the substantive points remain valid, and the overall proposed solution will not change significantly in the update.  A few areas such as the system for taxation will be modified, as will aspects of foreign relationships.

Whilst the report is focused on the Australian government, much of the report could be applied to most governments in democratic countries.

About the author: Peter Senior CV March 2016 – email: petersenior42@gmail.com

The report Table of Contents, then the Summary, are below:

KiS Report – Table of Contents

1Summary

2.  Introduction
2.01  There are glimmers of hope
2.02  Check the roadmap first

3.  Issues Influencing KiS Government
3.01  Democracy evolution
3.02  The modern nation-state
3.03  Cargo Cult mentality
3.04  Immigration
3.05  Freedom of speech
3.06  Trade unions, labour laws and productivity
3.07  Standards, regulations and intrusion
3.08  ‘Carbon pollution’ v. weather
3.09  The ‘green mafia’
3.10  Water management
3.11  Energy management
3.12  Global governance
3.13  NGO influence
3.14  Bureaucracy and convoluted government management
3.15  Levels of government

3.16  Justice
3.17  Economics and financial management
3.18  The modern politician
3.19  Human imperfections and differences

4.  KiS Issue Summary

5.  KiS Philosophy

6.  KiS Vision for Australia

7.  KiS Management
7.01  Management 101 delivers optimum results
7.02  A starting point to improve on

8.  KiS Government Organisation
8.01  KiS national government objective
8.02  KiS national government law process
8.03  National Government structure
8.04  Two levels of government
8.05  Democracy

9.  KiS Government management
9.01  Criminal Justice
9.02  National and local service fees
9.03  Excise tax and royalties
9.04  Financial management
9.05  Commercial and financial oversight
9.06  Citizenship and Visas
9.07  Infrastructure and the environment
9.08  Labour laws and productivity
9.09  Welfare
9.10  Retirement
9.11  Health
9.12  Education

10.  Implementing KiS Government
10.01  Transition plan
10.02  KiS government activities and resources
10.03  Planning and plans
10.04  International agreements and foreign aid
10.05  Asset ownership
10.06  Process and regulation simplification
10.07  Culture and values tests
10.08  Guardian group and freedom of speech
10.09  Communicating KiS changes

11.  Would the Silent Majority Vote for KiS?
11.01  Are the silent majority of Australian voters sufficiently fed up?
11.02  Boiling frog syndrome
11.03  An about-turn by politicians as well as the silent majority?

Appendices
A.  Australian immigration history
B.  The Greens’ agenda
C.   ‘Carbon Pollution’ in the UK
D.  The Silent Majority (1):  Australian divorce
E.  The Silent Majority (2):  ‘I’m tired’ (US)
F.  The Silent Majority (3):  What good people do
G. ‘The Australian Government beat me to it’

KiS Report Summary

Surveys, ‘pub-talk’ and media comment indicate that most Australians are very dissatisfied with their Government.  Few voters believe that current political parties can fix the plethora of problems which arise from the government itself – and politicians tend to exacerbate problems rather than fixing them.

Voter frustrations include: excessive governmental intrusion and bureaucracy; financial regulator failures; abysmal government management of risk, building, health, water, energy and immigration; ineffective criminal justice; ‘carbon pollution’ taxes and waste; the ‘green mafia’; variability of freedom of speech; covert influence from some NGOs; inadequate employment laws; and the regularity of politicians’ breaking of promises.

No democratic government in the world is widely viewed as very successful, so there is no ideal model to copy.  The complexity of government and the depth of related problems are too entrenched for incremental improvements to be effective.  A keep-it-simple policy could provide the best solution.  KiS is a completely different way of democratic government, starting with a ‘clean slate’ and applying the best management practices.  Key components of a KiS government would include:

  • Recognition that competent and diligent governmental staff are often thwarted by excessive complexity and by covert agendas of power brokers and ideologues.
  • Government structure comprises two levels: national and local.  States have figurehead roles only.  Local governments have wider roles including health and education boards.
  • House of Representatives and Senate member numbers are reduced to a total of 100.  Members demonstrate excellent competencies and comply with fiduciary duties of care.
  • All taxes are replaced by ‘flat rate service fees’ introduced over 3 years: 20% on individual incomes and 10% on business expenditure.  Compliance is simple.
  • Businesses such as mining companies using natural resources pay economic rents which enable fair profits and encourage investment and growth, including overseas investment.
  • Recreational drugs are not illegal.  Excise duties are charged on alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs at rates that cover all related costs with rigorous auditing and penalties.
  • Government processes, systems and regulations are reviewed using ‘clean slate’ methods that optimise efficiency and effectiveness, and, if necessary, are modified or replaced.
  • All government departments have audited plans that conform to guidelines reflecting best practices, and which include preparation for such contingencies as catastrophic weather.
  • The criminal justice system focuses first on full compensation of all victims’ losses and all related judicial costs, then on the rehabilitation of criminals.  When appropriate and possible, custodial sentences consist of home detention – prison is a last resort.
  • Government asset ownership is retained only if no better alternative be available.
  • Commercial and financial oversight is strengthened to ensure that GFC-type greed and excesses are not repeated.  Net government debt is eliminated as soon as practical.
  • All government funding relating to ‘carbon pollution’ ceases.  Related actions are reviewed after rigorous assessments and recommendations from a Royal Commission.
  • Immigrant assessments are completed and decisions made within three months.  Immigrants sign contracts agreeing to abide by Australian law and to support Australian culture and values.  Major transgressors are evicted from Australia.
  • A Guardian group investigates concerns about covert influence and behaviour.
  • Implementation is gradual over several years; each step builds on the last success.

KiS solutions focus on the concerns and wishes of the ‘silent majority’ of voters — the antithesis of political power-brokers, ideologues and rent-seekers.  KiS proposals are not intended to be definitive; rather they provide a basis for improvements and further reforms.

Are the ‘silent majority’ of voters so fed up with existing governments that they would vote for radical change such as KiS?  Would sufficient candidates with the requisite competence and credibility stand for KiS and promote it, or would an existing political party adopt KiS policies if it became clear a growing movement of voters demand change?  Failure to implement radical change soon will result in Australian politics and government descending even further into complexity, intrusion and waste with little hope of real reform.