The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120121005750/http://www.procapitalism.com/htms/opeds01.htm
December 01, 2006
... Israel as an EU member.
Whilst public interest has been focused on the debate over
Turkey's
accession talks to the EU
, it is seldom realized that a more suitable
EU
member is Israel. Israel has
a fully democratic government, a reasonably stable currency, a growing economy,
a proper judicial system, recognizes property rights and contracts, and has
its own army, navy, and airforce backed up by its own industry. In addition,
the Jewish community across the EU are not engaged in subverting member state
governments, but have contributed hugely to the intellectual and financial
well being of these EU member states--centuries before an EU even existed.
Israel also takes part in the
Eurovision
song contestant
, and
has
won it
. And is also a member of the
UEFA
.
Israel joining the EU has been promoted by former Israeli
Foreign Minister
Silvan
Shalom
, former Italian Prime Minister,
Silvio
Berlusconi
, and at least two Italian MEPs are campaigning in favour of
a future Israeli membership. It has been suggested that eighty-five percent
of Israelis would support EU membership and that the Israeli government is
warm to the idea, too.
In spite of all these positives, the EU prefers to think
of the closest possible integration that is just short of full membership,
since public acceptability of full Israeli membership is greatly coloured
by the ongoing middle- east conflict, by way of which, Israel is constantly
demonized as the malign aggressor in the conflict, always disproportionately
beating up on the downtrodden
Palestinian
militants
and Lebanon's
Hezbollah
.
In truth, Israel represents the frontline against radical Islam which too
many EU member states are morally paralyzed to confront. For what radical
Islam currently lacks in military hardware capability it more than makes up
for with internecine deviousness, suicidal self-sacrifice and long-term determination.
There is also the issue about how
Israel's
Law of Return
would be compatible with the free migration of citizens
within the EU. But since
Germany,
Finland and Greece, etc
., have similar immigration laws, free migration
within the EU would be compatible with Israeli law. This is because a right
to EU citizenship is not implicit, but simply enables EU citizens to freely
cross EU borders so that they can live and work. Even so, the EU in general,
may not wish to open its borders to the entire Jewish diaspora, and Israel
may not wish to open its borders to European Muslim immigrants.
November 01, 2006
...
Flag
of conevnience
.
'Democracy
is like a streetcar. You ride it until you arrive at your destination and
then you step off. ...Thank God Almighty, I am a servant of the Shariah'.
Prime Minister
Tayyip
Erdogan
.
It is altogether a good thing that Turkey's membership of
the EU is being vehemently opposed by Bundeskanzlerin
Angela
Merkel
. This is not because Turkey is a threat due its Islamic philosophy-of-faith
versus the western European Christian philosophy-of-faith, but is a threat
because its political élite in consort with foreign actors is using
the democratic process to infiltrate radical Islam into what is the government's
sphere of influence and, at the same time, weakening Turkey's military, by
way of EU restrictions on its historical ability to counteract the power of
an unsuitable though democratically government. A fact which has not escaped
the majority of Turks who feel utterly let down by inappropriate support from
U.S. diplomats for Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's government.
It is generally agreed that democrats work to realise a change
for the better within a system supporting freedom, and that radical Islamists
work to change the system to subvert freedom. This has been the case with
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan who, over the last four years, has spoken of
democracy and freedom, but has steadfastly used democracy to wage a sure and
deadly assault on freedom. For example: After a European Court upheld the
ban on headscarves in public schools, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan stated
that such a decision was wrong because the Court had not consulted Islamic
scholars Then, in May 2006, Turkey's chief negotiator
Abdullah
Gül
took part in the ongoing EU accession talks and demanded any
reference to Turkey's secular educational system be removed from the negotiations.
This assault on secular education is an important tactic for Prime Minister
Tayyip Erdogan because it has been traditional for students to make one of
three choices: 1. Enroll at a religious academy--Imam Hatips and subsequently
enter the clergy 2. Enroll at a vocational school. 3. Matriculate at a secular
high school, proceed through university, and then pursue a suitable career.
But making Imam Hatip qualifications equivalent to high-school qualifications
has enabled Islamic students to enter university and qualify for government
jobs without ever studying western values. In the face of opposition from
established university rectors, the Turkish parliament simply established
fifteen new universities. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan assured foreign diplomats
that the goal was only to promote education. But Turkish academics voiced
fears that the aim was to enable the hand-picking of political henchmen who
would overwhelm the academic board.
Another example is the passing of legislation to lower the
mandatory retirement age of technocrats which may result in the replacement
of almost half the judiciary with the strong possibility that judicial independence
could be drastically curtailed along with any decisions levied against the
government. And, if only to underscore this, a radical Islamist in protest
at the aforementioned headscarf ban,
gunned
down a high-court judge
.
In addition, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has quietly replaced the vast
majority of the banking regulatory board with officials from the Islamic banking
sector, with Saudi Arabian involvement very much suspected.
All across the EU we are faced with radical Islam aided and
abetted by EU-member states, foreign governments, and
pretenders
to the throne
, in its goal to use democracy to subvert western culture
and freedom.
Democracy in the hands of tyrants is the death of freedom. By voting for
Procapitalism you can avoid this outcome.
October 03, 2006
... Keeping the poor in
their box.
'Central
Banking is now put in the same class with modern plumbing and good roads:
any economy that doesn't have it is called "backward," "primitive,"
hopelessly out of the swim.'
Murray
N. Rothbard: What has government done with our money
.
Whilst it is vital that the tax burden is massively reduced for the proper
functioning of wealth creation and the subsequent good outcomes, it is also
vital that lower taxes are accompanied by removing the government's ability
to control the value of money by way of the central banking system and its
monopoly over the minting and printing of money.
Tax cuts are always a crowd pleasing stunt to win votes--as the old-Conservatives
know very well--but since it is always governments purpose to expropriate
money without scaring the horses, government only has to debase money by printing
and minting more of it in order to regain what it lost by way of the tax cuts.
Consequently, the poor stay poor and get to go off and fight needless wars
in even poorer countries.
(For a thorough explanation about how this works, please read
Professor Rothbard's short
e-book
which has been kindly made available from the Mises Institute. It is recommended
that the .pdf is downloaded for convenience).
Because Procapitalism understands this issue more than any other European
party, this is yet another good reason to be voting for Procapitalism.
October 01, 2006
... Environmentalism is
homegrown terrorism.
'
The
natural condition of man is extreme poverty and insecurity. It is romantic
nonsense to lament the passing of the happy days of primitive barbarism.'
Ludwig von Mises
.
Environmentalism has become a philosophically consistent consolidation
of
Conservationism
,
Preservationism, and
Neo-Marxism
with the goal of implementing massive bureaucratisation and regulation to
subvert freedom and coerce wealth from any possible source by using the powers
of government.
To that end propaganda has been put into overdrive to terrorise
voters into believing that the world is doomed because of global warming brought
about by carbon emissions, and to viciously demonise anyone who is of a different
opinion. (Some readers may recall the '
new
ice age
' scares of the nineteen-seventies.)
It is possibly true that high levels of carbon emissions will modify the
natural change of the climate, but it is definitely true that the climate
is always changing as a consequence of nature and without any predictability
about how severe or benign any change will be. The major contributing factors
to climate change are the earth's oceans, the imperfect orbit of the earth
around the sun and the tilt of the earth towards the sun.
Nature is something we have no influence over. But anything which can be
attributed to man is immediately seized upon as an opportunity to raise taxes,
and create laws of political expediency which are willfully and viciously
used to criminalise, and to destroy or hamper freedom of opportunity. This
is what Ming Campbell, David Cameron and others really mean when they invoke
environmentalism for the good of the planet.
The proper way is to implement laissez-faire capitalism so that the government
and those who wish to be a part of it would be properly limited with respect
to what they can do. For example, the government would not be in a financial
position to ensure the supply of fossil fuels from foreign sources by way
of military intervention. This would mean that fresh opportunities, on a free
market basis, would be encouraged to create new and more efficient technologies
for power generation and transportation. It would encourage better building
practices to be adopted so that transport would be simpler, and flooding would
be reduced or its effects made inconsequential. Introducing high-rise buildings
incorporating domestic, retail and commercial space would be a sound possibility.
Procapitalism hold that freedom and freedom of opportunity
is the hallmark of government concerned with the wellbeing of the planet and
society for the present and future generations. The environmentally friendly
alternatives, on the other hand, hold that tyranny implemented through coercion
is the hallmark of government concerned with the wellbeing of the planet and
society, for the present and future generations. Such an alternative is the
hallmark of the failed state.
Yet another great reason to vote Procapitalism.
September 01, 2006
... Immigration works.
The United Kingdom greatly benefits from mass immigration because it brings
in labour wiling to work for less than the minimum wage. This is important
because an economy can only grow and prosper whenever division of labour and
productive activity is at a significant and expanding level and where wages
are determined by the free market. Which the black-economy represents in contrast
to the legitimate economy.
In addition, the larger the population, the higher is the incidence of those
with inventiveness and entrepreneurship, which, as a consequence, increases
the likelihood of demand for labour at all skill levels. It also creates a
meaningful demand for investment capital.
The majority of the difficulties associated with immigration are of the government’s
making. These could be resolved by:
1. Scrapping the minimum wage so that all wages reflect the free market conditions.
By doing this, real wages, even when less in paper-money terms, would actually
have more real value. This would increase employment since more low-skill
jobs would become available to those currently unwilling to work for less
than the minimum wage. And the competition from those with higher skills would
be removed.
2. Abolishing planning regulations so that property developers would be encouraged
to invest in the supply of affordable housing for rent or purchase.
3. Reducing NHS and social services with a determined drive
towards privatisation would discourage immigrants coming to the UK to avail
themselves of services which would not be free of charge.
4. The abandonment of the ridiculous impositions of environmental regulation
and carbon-credits. These only serve to increase government and pressure group
control by way of propaganda and unfair laws, leading to an enormously hampered
economy and the erosion of freedom by eliminating rights. Ironically, a state
of affairs the majority of immigrants thought they had escaped.
All of this would go a long way to defining ‘Britishness’ An
unexpected byproduct of properly addressing the problems of immigration.
August 01, 2006
... The Israelis are doing
the proper thing.
In the few years prior to, and during the years of World War
2, the Jewish people became very aware about what the International Community
can do for them and other races in a similar position, which is why, in this
post-holocost era and with genocide raging in Darfur, for example, the Israelis
have an
Israel
equipped with the military means to defend themselves against
Hezbollah
and
Hamas
terrorists.
Unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, the
Israeli
Defence Forces
do not use Israeli citizens as a human shield and then
go crying to those with an agenda to fulfil about disproportionate action
and the loss of innocent life.
Firstly, the Israelis did not instigate the conflict between
themselves and Hezbollah and Hamas and are not acting disproportionally. The
Israelis are simply using their superior military power to vanquish an enemy
with no regard for the life of the individual or that enemy would know that
its provocative action would lead to its own destruction.
Secondly, when the citizens of a state willingly collaborate with terrorists
they cannot be regarded as innocent casualties when the terrorists embark
on foolhardy military adventures.
One man’s terrorist is not another man’s freedom
fighter, as the
milquetoasts
of moral equivalence love to declare at every opportunity. A terrorist is
someone with moral values based on a philosophy of faith attacking someone
with moral values based on rational reasoning. It would be a remote possibility
that someone with moral values based on rational reasoning would attack someone
else with moral values based on rational reasoning. This is because it is
in the self-interest of those with moral values based on rational reasoning
to improve the value of their morality.
The terrorist, on the other hand, is acting on behalf of a
supernatural entity for the collective good and has no self-interest to protect
or moral value to improve. Thus the terrorist cannot be reasoned with and
must be defeated by whatever means necessary with the minimum endangerment
to oneself or those acting on our behalf.
Until the International Community gets to grips with the aforementioned,
it should stay well away from the Israelis and their legitimate right to survive.
July 03, 2006
... Democracy-equals-the freedom
to do as you are told.
What are my freedoms and how are they being protected, without infringing
on anyone else’s freedoms, are the two most important questions the
voter should ask, when confronted by someone seeking their vote.
At the present time, no politician, in any EEC member state,
would be able to answer these two questions, since all EEC policy is geared
to sacrificing anyone’s freedoms to anyone else's demands , via the
false, and politically expedient doctrine: democracy-equals-freedom. Which
is why democracy-equals-freedom is being sold so heavily to those who don’t
have democracy, and are expected to believe that democracy will enable them
to achieve freedom. But, as they will quickly discover, the new boss is just
the same as the old boss.
The most vociferous proponents of democracy-equals-freedom
are the new wave of communists, socialists and fascists, since they do not
advocate individual freedom. Instead, it is their philosophy that everyone--excepting
themselves, if at all possible--must be subjugated to their spin, regarding
the collective will. And any dissent will be met by an ever growing overburden
of legislation-creep, with which, any dissenter can be arrested and imprisoned
indefinitely, as a terrorist, if necessary.
Freedom for the individual within the state, is that which is specified in
a proper constitution, which is untouchable by those democratically chosen
to defend the constitution’s specified freedoms. Such freedoms are more
usually called one’s Rights.
Democracy is simply a method. Freedom is a fundamental principle. Freedom
necessitates that government be reduced to only that which is necessary to
defend it, and nothing more, or one’s freedoms will be sacrificed to
others’ demands.
Voting for Procapitalism is the surest way to guarantee that your freedoms
are protected, without infringing on anyone else’s.
June 01, 2006
... A moral argument for the
modern Private Military Company.
The moral conflict between the protection of our freedom, and what is proper
conduct in times of humanitarian distress in foreign failed states, can only
be properly resolved by the modern Private Military Company (PMC).
On the days we remember and pay proper respect to the courage and loyalty
of British and Irish soldiers who served, were injured, or died in combat
since World War One, including the present conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the British government has always failed to acknowledge that too many of these
soldiers were sent to fight for reasons which had nothing to do with our freedom.
Foremost of the British government’s duties is to protect every one
of our lives, including that of soldiers, from the use of force by home-grown
and foreign enemies. Like the rest of us, our soldiers are rational individuals
who enjoy and take pride in the work of protecting theirs and our freedom,
knowing full well that their lives are at risk in the event of conflict, and
they do this because, like the rest of us, they refuse to accept to live as
anything other than free men, free from enslavement, and terror.
Our soldiers must only be sent to quell conflict when our freedom is truly
threatened, and the British government must make every effort to protect their
lives during such times of conflict, by providing the proper equipment, protection,
and rules of engagement, which do not demand that the lives of the enemy are
of more value than those of our soldiers’.
But the British government has steadfastly refused to meet
this obligation, and has repeatedly placed our soldiers in harm's way when
no threat to the freedom of the United kingdom existed. For example to quell
inter-tribal conflicts in Bosnia, and Kosovo. In addition, the current Iraq
and Afghan conflicts are responsible for the hundreds of unnecessary deaths
and unnecessary injuries of British soldiers, and has simply resulted in the
creation and adoption of hopeless Iraqi and Afghani constitutions, and subsequent
governments dedicated to the destruction of western culture.
For the British government to send our soldiers into conflicts, for which
there is no clear threat to our freedom, and without proper equipment, protection,
and rules of engagement, is a total failure of the British government’s
responsibility to us and our soldiers.
On the other hand, the use of the modern Private Military Company, which
conducts itself in a properly moral fashion, could be employed to enable suitable
refugees from failed states to reacquire their homeland and to establish proper
constitutional government (after we have done so ourselves, of course). Hundreds
of thousands of Iranian and Iraqi refugees now reside in the United Kingdom,
for example, so sufficient manpower is available to draw upon.
Other possibilities exist for the involvement of the modern Private Military
Company , and they are being developed by the PMCs themselves, as is proper,
for any private endeavour. A foremost example is the United Kingdom based
PMC:
Aegis Defence Services
.
Yet another good reason to vote Procapitalism 1,2,3...
May 10, 2006
... Self-interest and not self-sacrifice.
With the Afghan government busy with the implementation of
Sharia law, the imprisonment of blasphemers and sentencing apostates to death,
the coalition forces are busy defending their very lives from a resurgent
Taliban, Afghan warlords, drug-lords and drug traffickers. And this is supposed
to be a successful outcome for the war on terrorism and failed states.
This, of course, is the consequence of our philosophy of self-sacrifice
and has nothing to do with the philosophy of self-interest, so often mentioned
by the former Foreign Office minister, Jack Straw, and, soon to be, former
Prime Minister, Tony Blair. Who’s self-interest are they talking about?
Certainly not that of the UK electorate and their lives, as they live in apprehension
of another wave of suicide bombings, the rise of the British National Party
(BNP), and the fact that dangerous foreigners like
Abu
Hamza
, and his
terrorist
supporters’
Human Rights are rigorously promoted, as the hallmark
by which our culture is defined.
To act properly in our self-interest, would have been to place
failed states, such as Afghanistan, under our total control, until such times
as the Afghans are recognisably competent to run Afghanistan in a proper fashion,
without recourse to philosophies of faith.
All dangerous foreigners should be immediately deported to
their countries of origin, along with their concerned lawyers, if necessary.
We should be tearing up all international legal impediments to this, and resigning
from the moral abhorrence that is the UN. and the Security Council.
We have the troops and the technology to act in our self-interest,
but we do not have the properly directed will and determination.
May 01, 2006
... Retiring the Judas Goat:
A Judas Goat is a trained goat used at a slaughterhouse, to
lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. The term Judas Goat
is derived from a biblical reference to Judas Iscariot. A most fitting soubriquet
for the God-fearing
Peter
Robinson
, as he moves towards accepting the hand of Sinn Fein, and retaining
his and his
wife’s
thirty pieces of (adjusted for inflation) silver: their joint income from
the Northern Ireland assembly, not including their Westminster MP payments,
before the
November
24 deadline
. If you thought
Tony
and
Cherie
Blair were
living it large, think again.
For Peter Robinson and his associates at the DUP, the proper
purpose of government is to coerce money from the electorate. And if that
requires sacrificing the electorate, the process of democracy and the proper
purpose of government to satisfy a lust for money, which is not theirs, then
so be it. The only intellectual hurdle to be jumped is gauging how much media-pedalled
guff
is needed
to persuade their voters into believing that the voters’ interests are
paramount.
The voters’ interests are contained in this understanding;
1.
Democracy is simply a process which enables
the government of a state to be peacefully changed, it has no intrinsic value,
and its presence is not a mitigating virtue with respect to the moral value
of a culture. In other words, a democratically installed tyranny is still
a tyranny, as the Palestinian electorate are discovering with the election
of
Hamas
, as the followers
of Islamic
Hizb
ut-Tahrir
would swiftly discover upon the reintroduction of the Caliphate,
in a pan-Muslim world, and, as the Europeans and Americans would also swiftly
discover if Christian fundamentalism came to significantly influence the political
system, as a reaction to Islamic fundamentalists, etc.
2.
The
proper
constitutional
purpose of democratic government is to protect individual
rights, and property rights form government, criminal, and extra-state intervention.
It is not the purpose of government to regard society as paramount to the
individual and to justify its existence by pitting the interests of a majority
over a minority, or a minority over the majority, directly, or by way of extra-governmental
interests, such as focus groups, pressure groups, or environmentalists, for
example.
That being so, the Judas Goat, and others like him, would
be properly retired.
Yet another good reason why the reader of this Op-Ed should
be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism:
1,
2, 3
...
April 02, 2006
... No more business rates.
For any business to succeed, it is vital that all capital
gained is available for plowing back into the business. The imposition of
business rates severely hampers this from happening, with the consequent loss
in investment and employment opportunities.
For a small office, not in a city centre location, business rates can account
for not much less than £10,000.00 per year. This is £10,000.00
unavailable for the improvement of IT. The hiring of a trainee, or a freelance
worker, to help with expanding the business. The ability of the boss to purchase
or lease a better car or van to help with improving his/her business.
For a small manufacturing business, it would be common for
business rates to be not too much short of £50,000.00 rising to £100,000.00
per year for a medium sized manufacturing business. And that is often with
the bulk of the business rateable space being nothing more than storage. Again,
this loss of capital severely hampers the proper expansion of business and
employment opportunities.
It should also be understood that business rates must be paid,
no matter what the prevailing trading conditions are, and how much profit,
if any, is earned.
Business rates are a government imposed tax, a direct assault
on property rights, imposeable with all the powers of the police and the judiciary.
This tax is mostly used to fund mindlessly trivial government initiatives,
heralded as being for the public good and the good of society, and make doing
business even harder for the businessman. For example:
The
Department of Regional Development
.
The
Department of the Environment
.
The
Heritage Commission
, for example. All these government departments can
dictate to anyone, what, where and if, they can build or develop anything.
It is often the case that capital in the form of temporarily idle buildings
has to be destroyed by the expedient of ripping the roof off, and consequently
exposing the rest of the building to the ravages of the weather.
Business rates are a scourge which must be abolished so that
businessmen and women can get on with creating wealth and employment opportunities.
This would also severely the scope of government influence and its ability
to create initiatives that are ultimately destructive to our prosperity.
Yet another good reason why the reader of this Op-Ed should
be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism:
1,
2, 3
...
March 02, 2006
...
For
Society To Thrive, The Rich Must Be Left Alone
, by Professor George Reisman,
Ph.D.
The UK's
Philip
Green
has to resort to
enormously
elaborate tax saving schemes
to keep the wealth he has created, out of
the
hands
of the government, with force and legal power to take it off him. This applies
to many others, too, and has now gotten to the point, where they are forced
to consider registering as citizens of
Monaco
,
so that they become tax exempt, but effectively refugees from their own country.
As Philip Green already has.
This Op-Ed
will make it
clear why the government's persecution of the rich is stupid, and greatly
damages the UK's ability to prosper.
.
March 01, 2006
... Rust never sleeps.
Norman
Tebbit
, On Islam and the West,19th of August 2005:
The Muslim religion is so unreformed since it was created that nowhere in
the Muslim world has there been any real advance in science, or art or literature,
or technology in the last 500 years. We've leapt ahead in all material terms,
but the Muslim world would say we have fallen down in all spiritual and moral
terms. We have to accept our share of the blame and they have to accept theirs.
Whilst this quotation is easily applicable to an Op-Ed about
the
seven-hundred thousand Muslims
in Great Britain, who would happily establish
a Caliphate under Sharia law, it is more usefully applicable to the current
debate about identity cards. This is because identity cards represent a significant
example of ‘our share of the blame.’
Our share of the blame lies with the total inability of government
to properly define our culture, leaving it open to the evils of political
expediency and manipulation. This occurs for two reasons: The third-rate mindedness
of present government, which acknowledges the principle of moral equivalence.
And the adoption of the
European
model
of government, which demands the sovereignty of the state over the
individual.
In the first instance, no supernatural entity can be held morally equivalent
or superior to the rational and reasoned morality of man. To accept this to
not be so, is to inevitably cause the destruction of a civilised society.
Which no Muslim culture, in the current era, can make any possible claim to
be, since such cultures are intrinsically self-destructive.
In the second instance, the state and its elected government is not sovereign
over the individual. Instead, the state and its government is simply the vehicle
and the agent with which the individual has his or her rights protected: Individual
rights including property rights, and where all property is privately owned.
With this as the proper basis for our culture, our culture
would be properly defined. And the ludicrous ‘what if ’ scenarios
presented by
Lord Falconer of
Thoroton
and his third-rate minded cohort, would have no need to even
propose a compulsory identity card scheme, at vast compulsory expense, with,
at best, a might and very occasional usefulness. This is because the Islamist
terrorists and other malcontents, could choose to go live someplace else,
in a toilet
of
of their
own
making
, or, our government would have totally justifiable cause to expel
them, if need be, in spite of any Human Rights laws, which should be withdrawn
from., anyway.
In addition, the proper definition of our culture would halt
our slide into a dictatorship allied to a police force now more akin to a
thought-police force, equipped with unprecedented levels of CCTV surveillance
technology, and unrestricted legal powers to take DNA samples and fingerprints,
at will, and with no recourse whatsoever, to have this data expunged, from
what is reputed to be, the world’s most comprehensive criminal database,
by the individual--
according
to
reliable, and well informed reports.
Without doubt, only the implementation of capitalism, will
truly set the people free. Unlike the socialist gangsters, who, with artful
conmanship, only pay lip-service to the principles of freedom, in their
zeal
to command and control
.
The rot really set in, almost a half-century ago.
Norman Tebbit: The BBC, 24th of February, 1990:
The word 'conservative' is used by the BBC as a portmanteau word of abuse
for anyone whose views differ from the insufferable, smug, sanctimonious,
naive, guilt-ridden, wet, pink orthodoxy of that sunset home of the third-rate
minds of that third-rate decade, the nineteen-sixties.
This rot must be stopped.
Yet another good reason why the reader of this Op-Ed should
be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism:
1,
2, 3
...
(Note: Procapitalism shares no philosophical
ground of consequence with current Conservative Party (UK) thinking. However,
the above quote is consistent with the message of this Op-Ed, from a time,
when the Conservative party stood for something meaningful.)
February 09, 2006
... Anarchy in the UK and
Northern Ireland.
Education, education, education as it is currently practiced
in state funded schools across the UK and Northern Ireland, is tantamount
to so many state sponsored terrorist training camps. This is because the education
coercively provided by government has the effect of eliminating the ability
of students to form proper concepts and have the ability to recognise and
act on proper principles, so that they can confidently defend themselves from
a wave of mysticism enforced by extreme, and often deadly violence.
A particularly improper concept is multiculturalism. An improper concept
which has led to the improper principle of moral equivalence. This combination
of multiculturalism and moral equivalence is creating a society incapable
of knowing right from wrong, with the result that its ignorance is inflicting
terrorism upon itself.
To address the problem, the feebleness of ‘Britishness’
has been proposed by a possible
future
Prime Minister. But this is simply surrender. The adoption of the philosophy
of capitalism, and returning education to the private sector is the only real
answer to this problem. This is because education will be divorced from political
influence, and the parents of the students will be free to make proper choices.
(Also:
Why
state sponsored education equals state sponsored terrorism.
)
February 01, 2006
... Democracy is invalid
without Capitalism.
Present day democracies are invalid because their core feature
is the subjugation of others, by the government. Simply having a democratic
process is worthless, as the recent outcome in the
Palestinian
vote
, and the Northern Ireland peace process--too often cited as a shining
example--has clearly demonstrated. The
thugs
are still in power.
For democracy to be valid, it must be tied to rights. Rights
established from reasoned morality, with the individual as paramount. The
rights and needs of society are not the concern of democracy. Only the rights
of the individual is the concern of democracy, the consequence of which is
to elect the best government to protect the individual's rights.
The nature of the individual with respect to society is catered
for by the values inherent within the philosophy of Capitalism: The individual
derives value by free and voluntary trade with others for goods and intellectual
property, so that wealth is created and accumulated, from which, society benefits.
Until such times as the international proponents of random-democracy
come to realize this, the world is in for an unnecessarily difficult time.
But then, this is why the reader of this Op-Ed should be seriously thinking
of voting Procapitalism:
1,
2, 3
...
The rights of the individual are protected by the law, which
is also based on rational and reasoned morals and not pragmatic expediency,
as is conveniently practiced by the current UK government in Northern Ireland.
Under the flag-of-convenience:
Community
Restorative Justice
(CRJ) financed by an American charity and other sources,
that should know better, gangs of thugs roam the streets of Republican and
Loyalist strongholds across the province, in lieu of the legitimate upholder
of the law: The Police.
These thugs are engaged in the extra-judicial exiling of people
from the province, and the intimidation of women with respect to their liaisons
with men of of their choosing, for example. This is akin to the militia control
of parts of Iraq and the Gaza strip. Parts of the world from which Sinn Fein
and their Loyalist counterparts have strong philosophical ties, since such
anarchy is their raison d'etre.
Northern Ireland is often regarded as a valuable proving ground
for outrageous government policies before their introduction to the rest of
the UK.
Yet another good reason why the reader of this Op-Ed should
be seriously thinking of voting Procapitalism:
1,
2, 3
...
.
January 01, 2006
... National affront.
David
Cameron
cycling to his office trailed by security in a high powered
Jaguar
car
is wholly indicative of the shallowness of today’s Conservative
party philosophy. Big business is going to be stood up to. The NHS is going
to be retained and expanded. And Education is going to get another thorough
going over to make it even less effective than it is at present.
All of these policies are doomed to failure since they are
Socialist policies, which always fail. Wealth will be drained from the producers
of wealth and a new generation of wealth producers will be completely discouraged
unless they happen to be well ensconced in the machinery of government. Which,
of course, they should not be. In effect the society of meritocracy of
Margaret
Thatcher’s
tenure will be replaced by one of mediocrity in the battle
for the centre ground and possible election victory.
The Conservative party has now become the New Fascist party.
This is because the winning of an election, at all costs, is more important
than creating a wealth of ideas based on sound principles from which to fight
an election. ‘Principles?’ says David Cameron, as he sucks on
a lemon and shackles his bicycle to a fence.
01/12/2005
.. In the name of society.
To avoid another winter of discontent, like the one which preceded the last
Labour Party wipeout and their subsequent eighteen years in opposition, the
Labour Party have capitulated to the insane pension demands of the public
sector workers. The same public sector workers, who, it is claimed, work tirelessly
and selflessly for the good of society, but are willing to hold private sector
workers and future public sector workers to ransom, to satisfy their demands.
With this kind of tyranny to contend with, there is scant possibility of
those hard working entrepreneurs to bother themselves in the UK. Gordon Brown’s
uplifting rhetoric about encouraging entrepreneurs is simply a desperate appeal
to future producers of wealth, to sacrifice themselves, to the demands of
others.
For government to act as the henchmen for public sector workers’ demands,
so that the producers of wealth are coerced, by way of taxation and regulation,
to relinquish their wealth for the good of society, is akin to fascism, which
was supposed to have been done away with in 1945. Oddly enough, that’s
when the Labour Party swept into power and sold the UK to the Americans for
one-hundred billion dollars, so that their socialist agenda--which we are
still paying for--could be implemented.
This is not to suggest that there are not tireless and selfless workers in
the public sector. But the producers of wealth--the entrepreneurs--come first,
since it is that wealth which pays for the public sector. And public sector
workers ought to be working tirelessly and selfishly, for themselves, in the
private sector, so that proper government and a more prosperous UK can be
established.
01/11/2005
... Nice little earners.
Government today is awash with regulations which cover many aspects of our
lives. Most people live under the delusion that this is all to help protect
their interests. But the interests most served, are those of the instigators
of the regulations.
Bringing this aspect of government into sharp focus is the
issue of MP David Blunkett and his extra-political activities, which, according
to reports so far, have netted him in excess of £70,000.00 for nothing
more than a few after dinner speeches, newspaper articles, and consultancy
work about the nature of government regulation and how business can negotiate
its way through an increasingly regulated world. Talk about printing your
own money. These guys have it down to a fine art. And it’s all legal,
since the same politicians who create the regulations, also make the law,
which their law firms implement.
This, of course, is not government’s role The role of government is
nothing more than to protect the people’s rights, for which duty it
has the police, the armed forces, and the law at its disposal. Once government
oversteps this limited role, it rapidly becomes a self-protecting entity,
accountable to no one, justifying its existence by promoting fear and division
amongst the electorate.
For MP David Blunkett and his ilk, it’s business as
usual in the heart of darkness that is the Palace of Westminster, as the crippled
London bombings’ victims of 7/7 fight for a just compensation from a
government whose attention is determinedly diverted from its primary responsibility.
01/10/2005
... Cease and desist... please.
With the IRA disarmed to the extent that everyone appointed to verify can
be believed, we still have the ridiculous rant of the DUP’s Dr Ian Paisley
to put up with. With nowhere left to go, and painted into a corner, by himself
and his cohorts, the DUP, as the leading representative of Unionism in Northern
Ireland, have now to face up to the fact that they are as unprincipled and
as power and money hungry as their Republican counterparts, Sinn Fein. A fact
more than well enough demonstrated when they accepted their MLA posts at Stormont,
trousered the money and laughed all the way to the bank.
When one talks of a political vacuum in Northern Ireland, one only has to
look at the DUP to understand what that vacuum is. A vacuum that can never
be filled, without a drastic change in the currently unsustainable political
values. Values that are really non-values.
Theocrasy is the fountainhead of Dr Ian Paisley’s lack of values, and
since no Theocrat has ever, had any values consistent with the well-being
of a free society, he can never be anything more than the vacuum he represents.
He is utterly in conflict with himself and what he claims to represent, as
a democratically elected politician. That being so, he is as unprincipled
a democrat as his Sinn Fein counterparts, and for exactly the same reasons,
in spite of the superficial differences, about which he and his cohorts protest
too much.
01/09/2005
... Mind the rights.
In 1948 the British, National Health Service (NHS) was established.
At that time, Penicillin was barely available, and nothing remotely like the
drug treatments and surgical procedures available today were envisaged, which
can extend a patient’s life to well beyond that possible in 1948. When
the NHS was established, people were not expected to live significantly longer
than before, and its establishment was simply a way to rearrange the deck
chairs, in a bid to promote social equality by the Labour government of the
time.
The NHS currently employs 1.3 million people, and costs 76 billion pounds
a year. No wonder the Americans want to avoid this financial black hole. In
their case, a 1.5 trillion dollars (US) a year, black hole.
The fundamental problem for the NHS is that free treatment on the NHS has
become a RIGHT. And the government is duty bound to protect the rights of
the State. But the NHS is obviously not free, since it currently costs 76
Billion pounds a year to fund, and would cost much more to fund if key-workers
were unavailable from impoverished third-world countries.
Attempts are being made to economise through more effective management. This
is doomed to failure because the NHS cannot ever be made efficient. This is
because: Free treatment on the NHS is a right, and the NHS must be funded
by the government, through taxation. And the scope of the NHS is limited only
by available knowledge and treatments. But the taxpayers don’t want
to pay any more tax, yet insist on having the right to free treatment on an
NHS overburdened with new developments and subsequent demands.
01/08/2005
...
International
Orange
Within the
space of a fortnight the City of London has been the place of two mass suicide
bombing incidents. Fortunately--for Londoners and others from afar--the second
incident failed to produce any detonations. As usual, the UK government does
its land-of-hope-and-glory schtick to deflect attention from its abysmal record
with regard to its primary function of defending the state from terrorist
violence.
For the UK government to properly defend the state from terrorist
violence it must first of all recognise that terrorism is violence--physical
or psychological--visited upon a higher moral value from a lesser moral value.
And that the western world cannot grapple with terrorism until it recognises
that its moral values are mostly a skewed variation of the terrorists’.
Which is why the Palestinian-Israeli issue is such a misrepresented example
of Muslim grievance, and why negotiating with the IRA and its associates is
a fruitless exercise. Blithely treating all morality as equivalent will not
win any war with terrorism, as it is delusional behaviour.
Only when the moral values of the west are rooted in rationality
can terrorism be defeated. This is because their will be a clear and valid
distinction between the west’s moral values and the terrorists’.
Only a Progressive Capitalism government can do this.
In the meantime,
London
underground drivers
are being leaned on...
01/07/2005
... Making poverty history.
For poverty to be made history it is necessary to abandon
the hypocrisy and contradictions of the socialist-gangster politics, which
prevails in first-world Western states. For such socialist-gangster politics
to function, as they do at present, the developing nations must continue to
exist under the imperialism-by-proxy, deemed good practice by the ex-colonial
powers.
To sugar this poison pill for the citizens of the Western
first-world, debt relief allied to foreign aid, is the carrot to the stick
of democracy strong-armed into place. with no consideration for the quality
of the underlying principles, for any democracy to be meaningful.
The democracies of China and Africa are excellent examples
of how meaningless such unprincipled democracies are, such democracies being
simply a convenient smokescreen for obnoxious and murderous dictatorships.
In these hopeless states, chaingang, slave-wage labour soiling
its underwear at the 18 hour-a -6-7 day week at the workbench, with almost
zero hope of acquiring capital, is what stands between present day Western
first-world socialist-gangster politics and total collapse.
Without adopting Progressive Capitalism, there can never
be a global improvement with regard to poverty, since Peter must always be
robbed or killed to pay Paul.
01/06/2005
...
Freshly-dead
Hippopotamus
.
Barroso’s Law: The constitution expands to administer
the bureaucracy deemed essential by the political elite.
Knowing that the rejection of the European Constitution by
the French and Dutch electorate was based upon scant objective reasoning,
José M. Barroso and his associates see no conflict in persisting with
those that haven’t yet held a referendum. After all, if the European
Constitution can be kept ideologically alive, there is a good chance that
the required result could be finessed into place, or useful shards of it put
into practice.
Cynical politics of this kind, is a perfect example of why
the politics of today is no longer viable, and must be replaced by the politics
of Progressive Capitalism. This is because a Progressive Capitalist Government
does not exist to create more Government, but exists to protect the rights
of the individual from foreign and domestic interference and to administer
a rationally-just Judiciary.
With the scope of Government clearly established, the electorate
would have a clear understanding about what they are voting for, and would
be much more likely to make the effort to vote rationally, because hospitals,
pensions, roads, and everything else to do with their social well-being would
be the responsibility of their own -
PRIVATE
- endeavours, which they would value to have protected.
01/05/2005
... Choices by eleven.
If a student is lacking in numeracy and literacy skills by
the age of eleven, further education will be of scant value. In the majority
of instances, the failing is simply because there are not enough teachers,
and not because of disinterest by the parent or parents, or the student being
significantly mentally or physically challenged.
At a primary school level there is absolutely no requirement
to have all the teachers trained to beyond university standard, which, in
itself, is no guarantee of quality. Instead, only a core of administration
trained to such a standard and a sufficient number of classroom teachers trained
to be proficient in primary level material is needed. This training would
occupy no more than twelve months, at most, for those already numerate and
literate.
A working student-teacher ratio of 7:1 would be adequate to
allow the teachers to operate on a sufficiently one-to-one level with those
students who are experiencing difficulty. Even so, this does not account for
instances in which the student has problems that can only be effectively addressed
by specialists: Severe dyslexia/dyspraxia, for example. But these students
would be in the minority, and not a minority extending into the majority for
the sake of excusing the lack of teachers, and other failings of a state system
education.
At present, the state education system is all about expanding
opportunities for educators—so called-—to line their pockets from
state resources, with little interest in educating primary level students
to the necessary level of numeracy and literacy. This leaves parents and voluntary
After School Clubs to take some of the strain, without incurring the wrath
of the state funded educators.
This is an intolerable situation, which must be addressed—in
Europe and the United States—so that young students are not placed in
the position of having no significant choices available to them in their post-primary
school years. Only by privatizing education will the essentials of numeracy
and literacy be concentrated upon in a rational fashion.
01/04/2005
... Jackboot Central. The Bitter
Pill.
Jackboot Central:
The Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP declared -
18/05/2005
- that the Travelling community in the UK are acting unfairly in their use
of Human Rights law to get around not being able to develop[ property and
live on land that they own, because everyone else must apply for, and receive,
planning permission from local government, before they are permitted to build
and develop property on their land. On the face of it, this point of view
appears reasonable. But, more correctly, the problem is simply that planning
permission shouldn't be a requirement by anyone in a position to buy land
and develop it.
Planning permission distorts the value of property by controlling
what and where property can be built. Therefore, the value of one’s
property is not based upon true market conditions, but upon the Government’s
view of fair play, with respect to planning law.
In a Progressive Capitalist system: If you own it, you can
develop property on it. So long as you comply with the principles of
Progressive
Capitalism
01/04/2005
... The Bitter Pill:
Historical precedent has amply demonstrated that investing
in the stockmarket is an effective way for one to increase one’s wealth
over an extended period of time. But the stockmarket is not a sure bet, which
is made even less so, if the consideration about what stock to invest in is
given no more thought than betting on a dog at the track, or blindly following
transient trends. To be successful, the stockmarket investor must have an
adequate knowledge about what they are investing in, keep their investment
in place for an extended period of time, and be prepared to accept the risk
of losing their investment. Otherwise, the stockmarket is not the place for
them.
For many reasons - chief of which is to enhance pension returns
for institutional investors - Governments around the world have intervened
in the world’s stockmarkets in an attempt to make it appear that investing
in the stockmarket is less of a risk than it actually is. One of the worst
instances of this intervention has been the creation of the crime of ‘insider
trading.’
Victims of this non-offence - for example - have been: ImClone’s
Samuel Waksal and Martha Stewart. And Ernest Saunders of Guinness. These victims
of insider trading, have been the scapegoats for a crime that cannot exist
unless they had been expressly forbidden, under contract, to not claim stock
as part of their compensation package. The value of stock to any investor
depends upon asymmetric knowledge. In other words: knowing the
real value
of the stock held at a given time, so that a decision can be made to hold
or sell.
In the aforementioned examples, because their compensation
and value of investment is based upon the market value of their stock, they
cannot be obliged by other investors to undercut themselves, when the knowledge
that they have and the others haven’t, dictates that they should sell
to avoid a loss.
This is the bitter pill which must be accepted without
question, when investing in the stockmarket.
02/03/2005
.... The Right Wing Vs. The Wrong
Wing.
Capitalism is usually associated with exploitative authoritarian
regimes in which the individual is simply a statistic. In its narrowest sense,
this is true. But within the overall context of Capitalism, the individual
has the greatest freedoms of any political system, provided the individual
makes reasoned choices.
At present, if there is a desire not to use Microsoft’s
software, one can use a Linux or UNIX distribution instead, so long as one
is prepared to acquire some basic knowledge. Therefore, a monopoly doesn't
exist.
If one doesn't want to pollute the environment with their
car’s exhaust fumes, there is an electric or hybrid alternative, usually
at a higher price, but it exists. And with more alternatives purchased, the
price will fall according to supply and demand, and not government regulation.
So there is no need for any Kyoto treaty. In the case of America, it simply
falls to the American people to decide upon an available alternative, which
has beneficial implications for their environment, a reduced dependency on
foreign oil, and the profitable exploitation of new technologies.
The same applies to the quality of the media: If one doesn't
like what is on television or in the newspapers, simply switch the television
off, change channel, or don’t purchase the newspapers. In a free market,
the vendors soon get the message and change their practices. So thank you,
Stephen Green of Christian Voice, and other theocratic thugs such as yourself,
but one can can make one’s own mind up about how one wishes to be entertained.
Capitalism is separated from economics and religion, and the
State conducts its affairs in a Laissez Faire manner. The individual has the
right: to be selfish, to their ego, and to trade freely without interference
from the State, so long as this is not counter to the laws of the State, which
are ethical and based upon rationally reasoned morals.
This is the RIGHT WING. All else is the WRONG WING.
03/02/2005
... The terrorist’s mandate.
One man’s terrorist is often considered to be another
man’s freedom fighter, a view with considerable legitimacy because of
the pragmatic and gangster politics prevailing in the world today, democratic
or otherwise. Such politics, which denies the majority of morally determined
choice, will always lead to circumstances in which the use of terrorism is
the only option for those who are seldom any better than those they have a
dispute with. And so the cycle continues, with groups such as the IRA being
the determinator of whether or not political progress is made in Northern
Ireland, for example.
Based upon morally sound principles the simple answer would
be to exclude the likes of Sin Fein from any political dealings until such
times as they have reformed into a viable political entity. But because of
pragmatism, the Sinn Fein mandate is considered to have legitimacy. This pragmatic
approach was also a problem when dealing with Yasser Arafat, etc. Elected
or otherwise, leadership of this class simply has no legitimacy, because their
mandate is the product of unreasoned choice, and should be regarded as being
without mandate.
Only Capitalism avoids this problem, since it is based
upon morally sound and reasoned principles. And a terrorist is easily defined
as someone who is immoral, and is nobody’s freedom fighter.
01/01/2005
... Less is more.
To have the right to healthcare, employment, or an education
is nonsense. This is because the provision of these rights is dependent upon
the availability of sufficient wealth for the government to tax, by whatever
expedience, in order to pay for them, which is contradictory to the right
of the individual to trade freely and own property.
By making a part of free trade into a right, free-traders
are hugely discouraged, since the wealth created will be appropriated by the
government to pay for the rights of others, who are often actively engaged
in demanding their rights, without any inclination to create any wealth to
pay for these rights.
Capitalism avoids this contradiction because the government’s
purpose is to protect the individual’s right to trade freely, so that
the wealth created may be applied to wealth creating opportunities in healthcare,
employment, and education. By saying that one does not have the right to healthcare,
employment, or an education, does not mean that one should not be able to
avail themselves of these services. It simply means that one does not have
the right to demand these services from others.
============================================================
2004
01/12/2004
... Say no, to the Thought Police.
The notion of patenting software is creating
a
bit of a storm
in Europe, especially in the Open Source community, because
software is seen as an act of intellectual authorship and not an invention.
As written code, software can already be protected by copyright in the same
way as any other piece of writing. And, if the software's source code is kept
sufficiently secure, Trade Secret law applies, too, as in the case of
Microsoft’s
Windows
.
An invention normally applies to a physical entity, mechanical,
electrical, chemical, etc., or a process of some kind, which can be used to
create a tradable product.
The written specification for an aircraft, isn't an aircraft
until it is actually built, for example. But software, although it is simply
a form of writing, has the unusual attribute of being a viable product by
itself, its creation/development often the result of knowledge accumulated
from many academic sources and talented enthusiasts. This simply means that
software is very often a product with a lot of unattributable ownership. As
are the words and phrases used to compose a new book or screenplay, for example.
By patenting software in Europe, the possibility of malicious
action against small enterprises creating new software products, by larger
concerns, is increased hugely, as has been demonstrated in America by
SCO
and their
malicious
and
unsuccessful
legal action against
IBM
and many users
of Linux. Small enterprises simply can’t afford to take out patents
and defend them in international courts. Patent law - and any law for that
matter - is so open to interpretation, misuse, and abuse, that applying patent
law to software, will have an enormously damaging effect on the competitive
development of new software.
Only patent lawyers will gain financially from the patenting
of software. Copyright and Trade Secret law is quite sufficient to protect
everybody’s interests - except the patent lawyers’ - and at no
cost to the small enterprise. Which will increase competitiveness and keep
software developers’ minds and meagre resources engaged upon the creation
of good software.
01/11/2004
... Hidden agenda.
An
anti-racism march held in Belfast, 30/10/2004 was distinctive because of a
lack of the ethnic minorities that have come to reside in the
Province
.
One spokesman suggested that this was to avoid being recognised and attracting
future intimidation.
Sinn Fein’s
President,
Gerry
Adams
and MEP,
Barbara De Brun
were the most notable attendees, but said nothing.
A more plausible argument is that, although there is an unacceptable
level of racism consistent with other areas of Europe, racism is not particularly
problematic, but is sufficiently useful as a propaganda tool for Sin Fein
to amass more support, since the racism that is prevalent, is mostly conducted
by elements from the Loyalist/Unionist community. In addition, this lets Sinn
Fein form stronger bonds within the European Parliament, with left wing/green
political parties, to avail themselves of funds that could be better spent
elsewhere, and to consolidate their hold upon our liberties.
This is not especially an Op-Ed about Sinn Fein and
its progress within the
EEC
,
and the failings of the Loyalist/Unionist community, but is more about pointing
out how a prevailing situation can be used to advantage within a socially
immoral system, running amok on an agenda of victim-hood and insidious self-interest.
22/10/2004
... Klingon 101.
The newly expanded
European
Union
must now cope with 25 different languages in terms of documentation,
and translation at Parliamentary meetings. Seizing the opportunity to avail
itself of cultural development funds, Ireland has decided to promote the Irish
language and its requisite documentation at home and abroad. In practice,
this means that anyone seeking employment as an Irish civil servant must have
an accredited knowledge of Irish, even if it means doing without teachers
and other professionals, as has recently been reported in the press.
Now this could be taken seriously if Irish was a language
such as German or French, for example, which is actually in use. But Irish
is more akin to Latin, in that it is essentially dead,
except
for scholarly pursuit, or by those with a personal interest
. So instead
of ensuring that available public funding is spent more prudently on the teaching
of English, in its written and spoken forms, we have the Irish being literally
compelled to learn a language which is of no use whatsoever.
In addition, this is simply an underhand way of pandering
to an erroneous notion of cultural identity, Ireland should be looking to
the future, and not be dwelling upon a past not too dissimilar to that of
Eamon De Valera
and a
Volkish ideology dreamt up by a crazy Austrian and his propaganda machine
in the early-to-mid twentieth century.
Promoting the spoken and written forms of
Klingon
would be no less fanciful an agenda, with the added bonus of being equipped
for the 23rd century.
Qapla!