criminal negligence
 and breach of contract
  = divorce + punitive settlement!

.. democracy ...

  .. totally illegitimate ...

    .. without *informed* consent

Thesis: "Do what we say, and nobody gets hurt!" = Mafia stand-over methodology, *exactly* what our so-called 'leaders' mean when they say 'There is no alternative!' = "TINA!" This is deception, because there is not no but some alternatives, i.e. *better* ones; by deceiving us they are lying, by denying us a better alternative they are cheating us, this is breach of their contract = corruption. It means that they, our so-called 'leaders' make themselves illegitimate; no legitimacy = no valid laws. We the people need to 'roll-back' the results of this corruption to get to a better deal (at least as good as what we once had) - and not coincidentally, to save our once jewel-like planet from the rulers' depredations = excess-CO2 pollution caused climate-change habitat chaos/disaster.

[update, 20:20]


Consider "of, by, for the people" = so-called 'representative' democracy.

We the people agree to be ruled = surrender control over our own destiny, for which we are to receive 'protection' from the rulers against some threat (who knows what? But see Hobbes, below.)

The social contract:
  «Social contract theory played an important historical role in the emergence of the idea that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.» 

Comment, note: "... consent of the governed." The only meaningful consent is fully & fairly informed.

Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil:
  « ... Hobbes argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. Hobbes wrote that chaos or civil war – situations identified with a state of nature and the famous motto Bellum omnium contra omnes ("the war of all against all") – could only be averted by strong central government.» 

Comment, note: "... absolute sovereign," also "the war of all against all."

Starting sometime before Thatcher, someone developed a 'new theory' = neoliberal economics, the names Friedman (monetarism, Chicago School) & Hayek ("Road to Serfdom") come to mind, then came Thatcher's "TINA!" Before Bush#41 allied himself with Reagan, he termed neoliberalism 'voodoo' economics; he was correct.

The Road to Serfdom:
  « ... the Austrian-born economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek (1899–1992) between 1940–1943, in which he ”warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning,”[1] and in which he argues that the abandonment of individualism, liberalism, and freedom inevitably leads to socialist or fascist oppression and tyranny and the serfdom of the individual.» 

Comment, note: "... tyranny that inevitably results from government control... " etc..

  « ... is a tendency in economic thought that emphasizes the role of governments in controlling the amount of money in circulation. It is the view within monetary economics that variation in the money supply has major influences on national output in the short run and the price level over longer periods and that objectives of monetary policy are best met by targeting the growth rate of the money supply.» 

Comment: Note that one of the neoliberal so-called 'reforms' (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Costello), was to make the RBA 'independent' (of government), thus 'liberating' a lever of 'democratic' control (assuming it was ever democratic in the 1st place, IMHO an unwarranted assumption). But the upshot is that even the possibility of the control of money-creation is now totally beyond the hands of we, the (supposedly sovereign) people. Long-story short: Delegated power ditched; those who can't steer are (hapless) passengers; hope is a non-operative policy and controlling is infinitely better than trusting.

One more item for now:

Note that since Nixon 'crashed' the US$ (going off gold, Aug'71), the US$ is fiat = 'printed' - and this leads directly to the current shocking state of world finances, getting ever worse.


Bankers gone berserk: At least since the Weimar-wheelbarrows event, people have been aware of the printing = inflation danger; see Monetarism above. Under 'fractional-reserve' banking, money is 'printed' = created by key-stroke on banks' computers. Such control-mechanisms that exist (central bank, any remaining regulation) are *supposed* to ensure that printing does not depart from proper need - as measured by inflation, better the (desired) lack of it. In Aus, the RBA has an inflation-band target set at or under 3%. (Q: Why not 0% = *no* inflation? I am not aware of any valid reason; me at fault - or the fault of info we are 'allowed?')

That printing may be out of control is illustrated by inflation; in day-to-day living it is supposedly kept low (see 3% 'target'), but the figures are 'fiddled' by *not* including all factors (like house-rents, say), or substituting some falling priced item for a climbing one - a continually changed 'basket' makes comparison 'difficult...' Then, there're assets (stocks, housing, say.) The stock markets are *the* single indicator; funny how they continue to rise and rise - mostly, crashes excepted. (JMK, JKG & Co can explain/fix.) House prices in Aus doubled - coincidentally(??!) after Costello halved the CGT. Privatisation arose, in part, to supply more 'investment opportunities' - another part = "user to pay" = toll-booth the commons.

All money starts out as a loan; some entity borrows it, normally to start some business, the entity purchases things and services, the money paid out ends up back in the bank as deposits (however temporarily), and excepting here cash, which may (untraceably) wander a bit. But the borrowed money has a cost = interest, which accrues continuously. Another but, however much money is 'out there,' so interest is being paid by someone (from business profits, perhaps), and this interest is a) a drag on the system (usually at cost to the customer), and b) forms *unearned* profits for the banks (less overheads and the comparatively miserable pittance paid on deposits, i.e people 'in the black' - not too many of them, these days.)

Un-earned income is not the province of banks only; look to the resources sector (iron ore/coal mining, oil drilling etc.), say. Buy low/sell high is a capitalist principle which differs from 'cost-plus;' the difference over cost-plus is the unearned part = 'economic rent' and *might* be OK in the demand/supply frame, but is definitely *not* OK when the economic rent is being 'harvested' = ripped-off from we, the people - as it is with *our* minerals (we the sovereign owners), and the profits (often after extravagant = piggish deductions), going to shareholders (who by definition are not 'working' for the income), and especially when those shareholders are o/s = $s fleeing the country (83%!) Hence the correctness of economic rent taxes (RSPT or MRRT), which should be set at securing a fair 'share' for we the people - but typically are not - thanks, but "No, thanks!" to lobbyists & general political thuggery.

Un-earned income, equally if not more than earned income (what you and I get paid for doing something, call working or in modern-speak 'jobs, jobs, jobs!') - should be taxed, and that at a fair rate; it's part of the social contract, meaning the rulers are allowed to rule by us, on the understanding that they look after us - by providing *required* services (water, sewage, elec. etc.) - and especially health-services = Medibank, original '72-'75 version. Anything for-profit will preferentially generate profits - adding yet another drag on the people's cost of living, and egalitarian service-withdrawal = falling standard of living.

Now, to a *BIG BUT*, the so-called leaders are *un-taxing* income, *reducing* services, privatising = *flogging-off* 'the family silver' = govt. enterprises (water, sewage, elec. etc.), all the time screeching "TINA!" But it's not true = (mostly) lies. The non-lie part is 'tax-cuts,' the lie-part bit comes in when they preferentially un-tax the rich, whilst 'widening the tax-base' with *regressive* taxes = GST.

In other words and always worth a repeat, any idiot can cut or promise to cut taxes - what's *not* properly explained is that the cuts are heavily prejudiced against the people, to the advantage of the already-rich getting ever more obscenely richer - a demonstrable effect, as we can quite plainly see.

So far, I've described aspects of neoliberalism; adding to our woes is globalisation, and all the nasties which go with both, namely making the working person's life hell, and any unlucky to need 'welfare' services both poorer and sadder and those without sufficient $s for privatised medicine quicker and less comfortably dead - in the extreme case.


The facts are that neoliberalism/globalisation is by-and-large a swindle, see Perkins' "Economic Hit Man," IMF *forcing* their vile SAPs on mostly 3rd world countries, then so-called 'democracies' applying neoliberalism/globalisation bipartisanly = un- & anti-democratically, finally those countries which have so far resisted, now being forced by tax-cut deficits to SAP themselves - again by the so-called 'leaders,' *against* the interests of the people (increasing riots; what else to do but protest - then possibly cynically employed 'rent-a-mobs' to generate the (peaceful revolution destroying) violence?)


Fazit: We see that our so-called 'leaders' are leading us astray, the proof is before our eyes. "TINA" is a lie; most of the 'good bits' we once had are gone or being dismantled (see Ireland, Greece, Portugal, other PIIGS etc., plus; possible 'stand-out' = Iceland). The people most 'responsible' (actually, of course, irresponsible), are being traitors to us, we the people.

It used to be (Eureka Stockade, say) "No taxation without representation!" Well, we got representatives - who have betrayed us, very badly indeed.

Q: Where are the truly clever people, those who could provide effective countervailing force - to save us, and save our planet?


PS It is easy to see that democracy as we experience it is a total failure, one proof (of many) is the filthy lie-cloud = pushed-propaganda paradigm they mislead = dumb the people down with. What is hard to even contemplate is how sooo many can be sooo bad for sooo long; Q: What is their trick? What's their 'rationalisation?' What is their excuse, where did it come from, who maintains it?


Then, there's the illegitimacy aspect; only *just* law may *earn* respect. A 'good' = bad example is anti-drugs laws; people may (more or less) poison themselves with tobacco, or drink themselves to stupefaction with alcohol, but even there the police are being given ever more power to harass. 'Recreational' drugs, some less harmful than T&A, should be an issue *only* for the user; heroin, even if taken as a known potential suicide-method, is no outside agent's business (apart from but especially so, in a deliberately maintained unemployment-plagued society). But whatever laws, IF the representatives are not working *for* us (my thesis), THEN they are working *against* us; *any/all* laws they may attempt are *invalid*.

One objective of neoliberalism is to 'downsize' government; tax cuts (mainly off the rich) = deficits and/or service-cuts and privatisations, *exactly* what they're forcing onto the Greeks this week. Ergo, government downsized, except for the tyranny.

This leads us back to Hobbes and Hayek; traitorous, un- & anti-democratic leaders are tyrants = Hobbes' absolute sovereigns, the neoliberalism/globalisation being forced on us = Hayek's serfdom. Hobbes' war against all others is the US+Zs resource wars against any/all substantial resource-owners = us, we the people. We are there = Hobbes' and Hayek's hell, also coinciding with Orwell's 1984, to boot:

  «But always--do not forget this, Winston--always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever.'» 

We, the people's human face - under vicious tyrants' boots - for ever?



[1] consent  -v. (often foll. by to) express willingness, give permission, agree. -n. voluntary agreement, permission. [Latin sentio feel] [POD]

[2] sovereign  -n. 1 supreme ruler, esp. a monarch. 2 hist. British gold coin nominally worth £1. -adj. 1 supreme (sovereign power). 2 self-governing (sovereign State). 3 royal (our sovereign lord). 4 excellent; effective (sovereign remedy). 5 unmitigated (sovereign contempt). [French so(u)verain: -g- by association with reign] [ibid.]

[3] absurd  adj. wildly illogical or inappropriate; ridiculous.  absurdity n. (pl. -ies). absurdly adv. [Latin: related to *surd] [ibid.]

[4] abstruse  adj. hard to understand, profound. [Latin abstrudo -trus- conceal] [ibid.]


Update, 20:20; PPS (Warning; discriminatory framing): 'Moaning' about the rich getting richer is denigrated by the status quo apologist/trolls as 'wealth envy,' an absurd[3] debating tactic (close to abstruse[4], as zu Guttenberg (aka zu Googleberg, aka a proven liar) deployed). To make any argument personal is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, as unnecessary as it's distasteful (not to mention *wrong*). IF a) our world were infinite AND b) all else were equal, THEN c) the status of the obscenely rich would be less than a trivial curiosity. BUT our world is very definitely *finite* AND the rich are - basically, not all of course but *largely* - criminals; the latter *proven*, especially by their neoliberal modus operandi = ripping us, we the people off. In contrast to 'moaning,' I advocate for social justice, so I query the motivation and methodology of our rulers, along with their (by definition in mufti = dodgy) string pullers. By now, we should all know about the big lie; we know we're being lied to, and that the liars give themselves an excuse, namely some noble lie. (Whatever that might be; secrecy = enemy of democracy, here we see a BIG reason why; the definition actually contains the warning: 'if uncovered ... noble lies ... would cause discord.') IF some people put themselves above us, we the people (as our so-called 'leaders' obviously do), THEN we have to consider some 'noble lie' *excuse* vs. some expected 'noblesse oblige' [n. privilege entails responsibility. [French] [POD]]. The so-called 'leaders' clearly fail (by their *demonstrated* irresponsibility) - leaving us, we the people - right in the shit. Note that their lies are *not* helping; the world is on a downwards-spiral to disaster. There's nothing élite about crime or criminals; their lies don't work so well anymore (MSM now bypass-able), much less their supposed but totally absent noblesse. To the so-called 'leaders:' Kindly cease, desist & disappear - or *be* removed; we'd be better off *not* being led at all, rather than suffer such disastrous, lying ... (fill in your own descriptor(s).)


No comments:

Post a Comment