Tuesday, 31 December 2013

Should Conservatives be Optimistic?

Should Conservatives be Optimistic? 

In the everyday life of a Conservative there is much to be angry, annoyed and even depressed about. It is right to feel angry when Muslim terrorists commit yet another atrocity and our national "leaders"talk about a "religion of peace". It is right to be annoyed when we are told our Traditions must be put be put aside so as not to offend others. It is depressing to hear people support some Liberal idea or talking point when it is obvious they know 9/10th's of nothing on the subject but still need to say something so they'll still be a member of the club. 

Non of these things are right but it's not enough to be angry, annoyed or depressed. It's normal human nature to feel these emotions, I know I do and so should you at times. But it's not enough for it to end there, it's not enough to let the idea that we are always losing take hold. The truth is we haven't begun to fight.

I have always been a Conservative but I left the fight to others and I supported from afar, sometimes thats all you can do. But I always wanted to do more but where should I go? How could I get involved? What could I do? But I encountered a problem, there wasn't any Conservative organisation to join. I could have joined a political party, I thought about it but I realised that just because something is called Conservative doesn't make it so. I could have joined other non-political organisations but they tend to focus on only one issue when in reality these things are all connected. I got no where but frustrated.

One day at work I was so annoyed at everything, so I seriously started looking for some Australian Conservatives on the web and I found Oz Conservative. Here was someone who wasn't a radical or a ratbag, who wasn't a Right Liberal calling themselves (and believing themselves) to be a Conservative. I got in contact with Mr. Mark Richardson and soon we met up, we had different ways of looking at things but we agreed to keep meeting and we have for two years now.

You might ask but what have you achieved? In short not much, we haven't changed the world, not even one policy. But whats different is now I am not passive, I am still a victim of Liberalism , as are you, but I am not simply a victim. I have moved on to trying to organise and think. That brings it's own problems as you see that the old ideas you had aren't as good as you thought but the new ideas haven't always turned up yet, not to worry (although I do) as chances are they'll be here after you've had a chance to really allow them to percolate for awhile. 

 Well that tells you about me, why should you be optimistic? 

For three reasons: 

1) Conservatives are starting to understand the difference between Right Liberalism and Conservatism, that we keep losing because we keep expecting the wrong people to fight for us. 

2) The Internet really allows us a means of communication that cuts out the media, we can speak directly to each other. It doesn't matter where you are you can find out what others think and gain comfort and ideas.

3) Liberalism is failing, society and the economy are both failing and people can see it if they wish to see it. Also Liberalism believes it can just keep pushing and pushing but we are becoming immune to their tactics, we no longer take seriously their insults of bigot or racist. Remember the sign that said " It doesn't matter what this sign says you'll call it racist anyway." We are finally learning.

But it isn't enough to simply complain, or be angry or be annoyed or to be depressed. So many times, too many times, Liberalism has stumbled and Conservatism should have given it a push. But instead there existed no real Conservative organisation or movement to do it. That needs to change.

The future will not always be bright, in fact many of the policies and ideas of Liberalism will hurt us personally. But instead of taking us out of the fight we need to use it to rejuvenate our commitment to fighting Liberalism. Because what happens to me will be visited upon you and vice versa. Thats how Liberalism works and we need to help end that. Not by looking for supermen or some ethnic minority leader to do our job for us but by doing the job ourselves. The fight is not hopeless, Liberalism is weak, it appeals to emotions not logic which means it is full of illogical ideas. Ideas full of holes that we can pull apart. Many people like emotions more than logic, but very few can live in a word without logic. We need to take advantage of that, not just to point out that the Emperor has no clothes but that we, Conservatives, know how to dress him. Something that Liberalism has failed at.

I will leave you with something I saw written down:


The pessimist complains about the wind

The optimist expects the wind to change

The leader adjusts the sails



I was inspired by this article "It won't do" at Oz Conservative and I really liked the first comment by Laura Elizabeth





Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future   


Wednesday, 25 December 2013

The Concept of Mercy

The Concept of Mercy

The vast majority of people are capable of feeling compassion for others. To hear of people who's lives have been devastated by natural disasters can make people feel compassionate and even to donate, time, resources or money to help. We also often feel compassion when we hear of tragic accidents, misfortunes and for the victims of crime. Often there is nothing we can do to help or to alleviate their suffering. We are in many cases unable to restore their lost property, their sense of security nor can we restore people to life.

When we hear of these tragic events we often think how can the world be so cruel. If I had the power I wouldn't allow these things to happen. The truth is non of us will ever have the power to stop suffering so we can never know. But wait there is a way for us to stop suffering, we can show mercy. Mercy is a way for us to be not passive, but active in making the world a better place.

Unfortunately it is not possible for us to stop natural disasters or to prevent all accidents, misfortunes or crimes. It is only possible to show mercy when you have the power to change the outcome. So a criminal may show mercy to his victim, but a natural event cannot. Once a criminal has been arrested or imprisoned we have the power to show mercy. Mercy is a very important concept in Christian thought and it has been one way of showing God's mercy to all of us by giving mercy to one of us. So throughout history Rulers and Judges have used this concept of mercy to show that they are also Christian, that they live in Gods mercy and that now they are showing a small measure of that mercy by commuting the sentence or pardoning a convicted prisoner.

This concept was a major argument in the abolition of corporal and capital punishment. That while we had the power to punish severely it was merciful not too. It also demonstrated our power by showing that we were more evolved than others, particularly those of the past, and it showed that very Christian concept of redemption. That even though a person has committed a crime that ordinary people would think only a beast could commit, they are capable of being saved. Not by God but by us. The more merciful we are the less we need God as we are proving how much better we are.

The concept of mercy presupposes that mercy is to be given by the stronger to the weaker. Most people would agree that a prisoner is much weaker than his jailer. Who is himself employed by the Government. It is the Government that decides on mercy and it can either give it or withhold it from the prisoner. But this is a misunderstanding of the concept of mercy, because it is not just something that concerns the Government and the prisoner only. It concerns all those involved, no matter how distant from the prisoners crimes. Is it truly merciful to not punish a prisoner?

Is it merciful to his victim? Or to the victims family or friends? Is it merciful to future victims? And what of society, is it merciful for them?

If the concept of mercy does not extent to those affected by crime then can it really be termed mercy?

The courts have tried to accommodate the idea with victim impact statements and the like. But the truth is that for most people the mercy they want from the courts is for the court to hand out an appropriate punishment, something that is often lacking as the community standards of Judges and the community standards of the community are so often at odds.



Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Friday, 20 December 2013

Christmas Shopping and some Ramblings

Christmas Shopping and some Ramblings

I want to point out some observations I've had this year while Christmas shopping. Wednesday I caught the bus to Epping Plaza, a large mall in a nearby suburb. I wanted to do some Christmas shopping and get 1000 copies of my post printed:


Which I put into letter boxes when I go walking. In the past I've done it in batches of 100 and I did that 10 times, so I decided to pay $160 and get them all done at once. It took me about 5 months to hand out all of the last 1000. 

After organising for that to be done, I went and had lunch at Hungry Jacks, in America it's called Burger King. But when Burger King came to Australia there was already a small chain, I think 3 stores, with that name. The owner wasn't interested in selling the name so they were forced to get a new name, for some reason I do not know they chose Hungary Jacks. In time the Australian Burger King went out of business and they decided to get the name and rebrand their stores. But Australians accepted Hungry Jacks as an Australian company and it lead to a drop in sales as Burger King "took over". So now at Australian airports you will find Burger Kings, but everywhere else in Australia they are Hungry Jacks, even though they are owned and operated by the same company. I know what your thinking, what did I have for lunch? I had a tropical burger, I should have got a bacon burger.

At Epping Plaza at each door was a giant Father Christmas, about 7 feet tall. Father Christmas is the Australian name for Santa Claus, although we use both names interchangeably. The hall ways had Christmas decorations but not many shops. I took note of one store in particular not having any Christmas decorations as a few years ago I complained to the store Manager because they did have Christmas decorations.....in October!

I found where Father Christmas was having his photos taken with the children, right next to the toy store those clever marketers. But I was noticing a distinct lack of any religious theme in the decorations, with the exception of stars. But right behind Father Christmas was a Nativity scene. I had given up any hope so I was pleasantly surprised. 

Another interesting thing that happened was while the service was good and people were polite no one in any store I went to wished me a Merry Christmas. But every time I was served I wished them a Merry Christmas. What was interesting was that everyone of them reacted in the same way, they smiled and said "you too". Not a store smile but a real smile, the women in the Post Office looked like she was suffering depression until I wished her a Merry Christmas when her face lit up. To be fair I think the Post Office of a large shopping centre at Christmas would be hard work. 

I've noticed in everyday life a lack of pleasantry, please and thank you are things of the past. Thats not to say kindness or consideration are. I've seen both this year between strangers in the street and on public transport. Men still open doors for women, on crowded trains when a seat becomes available they will often give a women the option of a seat first. Women are also considerate, although I have never seen a man sit down and have a pregnant women stand in front of him and he tries to pretend she's not there, which I saw a women do. Some women are quite polite, others seem to have never learnt manners. I'm not sure whether to blame the parent or the child. In my recent experience men are still polite, not all men but still most.

One final notice, Wednesday was very hot and I had to walk quite a way in the sun with my box of 1000 printed copies. I sure hope they are worth it as that was damn hardwork.


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future  

Sunday, 15 December 2013

Free Trade Versus Protectionism

Free Trade Versus Protectionism

I must confess that when I hear a Free Trade argument I tend to agree, but when I hear a Protectionist argument I also tend to agree. Which means that either

1) I'm a jellybrain

or

2) the arguments are presented as ideals.

Unfortunately for me the two are not mutually exclusive. But for my sake I'm going to go with 2) which means that we now need to have a look at both arguments.

Free Trade
The Free Trade argument goes like this, Protectionism protects bad industries, industries that are unprofitable unless given an unfair advantage such as tariff protection. This advantage hurts productive industries as well as everyday consumers and everyone is a consumer. The cost of goods are more expensive which hurts every productive business and every consumer, in short it costs more to live. It would be better if these artificial barriers were removed and everyone operated on a level playing field.

Protectionism
The Protectionist argument goes like this, every Country has an economy and every economy competes with other economies, therefor your Countries economy needs to be given every advantage you can give it. To protect industries, jobs and living standards, trade barriers need to be enforced so that cheap foreign goods cannot destroy the advantageous that have been built up over time.

Near where I live was once the clothing manufacturing capital of Australia. It produced most of the clothing and footwear worn in Australia, it also exported . But in the 1980's the Labor Government reduced tariffs and within 5 years nearly the entire industry was dead. You could argue that Free Trade was right as it proved that the industry was unprofitable without protection. You could argue that Protectionism was right as a viable industry was destroyed by taking Australian jobs and giving them to people in other countries. We gave away our advantage. The argument would be moot if those made unemployed by the factories closing down were employed and those who would now work in those factories had jobs, but sadly that is not the case. The area were these factories closed have high rates of unemployment no matter how the rest of the economy is going.

Earlier this year Ford announced it was ending the production of cars in Australia in a few years time. This week General Motors announced the same and it's expected that Toyota will do the same soon. All three companies have been given very generous subsidies by the Government, no matter which party was in office. Now the Government with a large budget debt has decided to say no and the car companies are leaving. The Free Traders will argue that it costs us alot more money to buy a car than the sticker price on the windowscreen, in fact even if you don't buy a car manufactured in Australia you still get to pay for one, in what way is that fair? Protectionist will counter with the argument that when production ceases all cars will be imported, Australia will get no benefit as all of the skills, jobs and money either come from overseas or are going overseas. There is also no guarantee that prices will go down, only a promise.

In both cases I think the withdrawal of the protection has been too quick. With time many of these companies may have been able to compete, but having the rug pulled from under them left them with too big an obstacle to overcome. A further worry is that foreign owned multi-nations have no incentive to keep facilities in countries that do not offer some kind of incentive. Low wages or Government subsidies. To be sure subsidies are welfare for big business, something I don't like at all as it hurts smaller companies. But the truth is that the idea of a level playing field is a lie, we are not talking about Australian companies competing against Canadian companies or Australian workers and conditions competing with Canadian workers and conditions. Two countries with similar living conditions. We are talking about Australia competing with Thailand and Samoa, amongst others. Many countries have lower levels of living, lower conditions and lower wages. Many countries have subsidies. That is not a level playing field. The policies of Free Trade have in all First World countries brought on permanent mass unemployment. Until the Free Traders find a way to end mass unemployment they have failed.

That doesn't mean that the Protectionist have won. Both have advantages, but from what I have observed, personally and historically is that neither work for long. Both are too rigid in their approach. The Protectionist economy did allow companies to exist that were terrible at what they did, they didn't innovate, they didn't try to be more efficient, they were complacent and the Government encouraged that attitude.  

Maybe it is time to abandon both positions and be more flexible. The "Austrian" economists argued that Communism and all command economies would fail because the economy is too complex to understand well enough to control. I think they are right on this point, but it is possible to encourage and nudge the economy. Just as most countries have floated their currency, why don't we float tariffs? No one would notice a tariff of 1 or 2 percent, but they would if it was 5 or 10 percent. The argument is that tariffs hurt consumers, why not give the money made from the tariff to the consumer in their tax return? The aim of the tariff would be to protect Australian jobs. Companies should also have a floating tax rate, there would be a minimum rate of tax, say 20 percent and then a floating amount up to a maximum of say 40 percent. The amounts can change it is the idea that is important here. The floating amount would reward companies for 3 things, long term employment, new employees and low unemployment. While it might not be possible for many companies to get down to 20 percent, it sure would give an incentive.

I hope I get some comments on this one, good or bad. I know there are both Free Trade supporters and Protectionists who look in here so please if you have something to say please do so.


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

The Ninth Month

The Ninth Month

Here we are nearly at Christmas and another month to report on. I won't promise anything but I plan to try doing two posts a week instead of the current one. For the last few months I've been steady doing a post every 5 days with a few exceptions, now I'll try to post every 3 days. This month for the first time I included links to posts on other sites, I've been encouraged to continue this. At the same day and time I linked to these other sites, Mark Richardson of OzConservative linked to me, we were only 15 minutes apart with no prior conversation on what we were thinking. Which reminds me that this Monday I went along to an Eltham Traditionalist meeting in which coincidences were big. One new member said a friend who had known Mark Richardson in the past was talking about him and the next day Mark Richardson dropped a leaflet into the new members letterbox. It turned out they lived only streets away!

My best day this month was the 20th November when I had 103 visitors. That was after Mark Richardson linked to my article, The Bi-Polar Party - The Liberal Party of Australia. Which today entered the Top Ten posts on my site.

 http://uponhopeblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/the-bi-polar-party-liberal-party-of.html

My worst day was 4 days later on the 24th of November when I had 19 visitors. Unfortunately for me I was quite sick and unable to post anything during this period. The next day I had 58 visitors, sometimes it's just strange how the numbers go up and down. On a normal day I get somewhere in the 40's.

As always each month is from the 11th of one month to the 11th of the next month.

November - December
EntryPageviews
United States
652
Australia
188
China
91
United Kingdom
67
Canada
40
Russia
32
Germany
27
France
23
Romania
20
Japan
12



October - November
EntryPageviews
United States
577
Australia
154
China
67
United Kingdom
65
Indonesia
34
France
29
Romania
29
Ukraine
27
Japan
25
Canada
24

The United States is a powerhouse, it keeps getting bigger each month without fail.

Australia is also up from last month, although it was higher last week.

China is in third place and it's overall numbers are 1/3rd higher than last month.

Russia and Germany have jumped up into the top 10 again which is good to see.

The United Kingdom and France are basically the same as last month.

Romania has fallen and Canada and Japan have halved.

Indonesia and the Ukraine have left the top 10 but are still active.

Other countries I remember having stopped by are Poland, Azerbaijan, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Libya and New Zealand.

To all my readers have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Yours Sincerely
Mark Moncrieff


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future


Friday, 6 December 2013

Living on Debt - AKA - Stealing from the Future

Living on Debt - AKA - Stealing from the Future

The World economy is living on borrowed time as it is built on a mountain of debt and no country will get to escape. Debt is an insidious thing, because it promises so much and delivers so little, let me explain by asking you a question. Is it better to owe $1000 or to have $1000? Most people would say it would be better to have $1000 and I would agree. But many people borrow money, many of those people have good reasons to borrow. Some don't and in a healthy banking system they would be denied credit, the ability to borrow money.

But thats not the world economy today, today nearly everyone who has access to credit can get credit. Do you have a credit card? Everyone who does has a direct line of borrowed money, no questions asked in most cases. You can get into debt without even trying and have alot of fun doing it and the banking system and the Government will support and help you into debt at every stage. Do you have an education? Did you have to borrow money for that? If you did you'll be paying that off longer than the education lasted, whether it helped you or not. In the United States you cannot get rid of a student loan even if you declare bankrupt, you can escape all other creditors but not that one. It makes you wonder.

But before I continue let me say that borrowing money can be necessary and indeed a good thing. It all depends on why the money is borrowed, a house can be a good reason or to buy a business. But most borrowing should for something that in the end will improve your economic situation, if it does not do that then it's probably not right to borrow the money.

Until now I have talked about personal debt and that is important, but the really scary debt is Government debt because it affects us all even though non of us have borrowed the money. Our Governments, and nearly every Government is in debt, borrows money for good and bad reasons. Firstly the good, the Government doesn't get it's revenue as regularly as it needs to spend money so to cover the lag it borrows money. That is a legitimate way of financing the Governments shortfall until the revenue arrives. Secondly the bad, much, maybe most of the money borrowed is in reality a bribe. A bribe to keep the population ignorant of how little the Government can in reality do.

Most Governments cannot provide for Defence, Welfare, Health, Education and the 101 other activities that Governments must provide for to the degree that most people want, so it borrows money and pretends that it can afford this lifestyle. The Government uses this debt to bribe the people, sometimes you receive it indirectly when the Government supports something you think more money should be spent on, health or education for example. The money doesn't arrive in your pocket but they have bribed you non the less by giving you what you want. Sometimes it a much more direct bribe, Welfare for the poor, subsidies for the middle class and economic subsidies for the wealthy. The Government gives you money directly, paying for working mothers to stay home with their new born baby, paying for education costs, something that people should be doing themselves.

It isn't a bribe just because the Government spends money, it's not a bribe just because you support it, it's not a bribe because you obtain a direct payment. It becomes a bribe when the Government borrows the money because it doesn't have it and pays for things you desire. Not things you need but things you desire. It may be that what you and the Government want to spend money on is a good thing but unless it provides an economic benefit in the future it's a bribe. If it provides an economic benefit right now, it's a bribe.

It's not my debt and it's not your personal debt so why should either of us be worried about Government debt?

Because the only people who can pay our Governments debt is us, the taxpayer. The Government does have other ways of making money, but the best way is through tax, either direct tax such as income tax or indirect tax such as sales or company tax. All of these things force up the price of living meaning they will have a direct affect on everyone who isn't very wealthy. If you happen to be poor and you rely on Welfare to survive, how well will you do when it's is cut or when they start missing payments?

Debt needs to be paid but instead we have an economic system built on more and more debt. How do you get out of debt when you continue to borrow money? The short answer is you don't. Unless our Governments start to rein in debt we will all suffer the consequences, whether you live in a nation that borrows money or a nation that lends money. The worst part about debt is that the money is borrowed from our children and grandchildren. It is they who will get to pay the price for this excessive lifestyle, both personal and public and just to rub salt into the wound they will get very little benefit from it.



Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future    

Saturday, 30 November 2013

Unions and Traditional Conservatism

Unions and Traditional Conservatism 

There are many things that Unions and Traditional Conservatives have in common, we both support workers having a living wage, safety at work and dignity at work. We believe that workers are every bit as important as Management in making a firm profitable. Further we believe that all of those who work for the same Company or economic enterprise are on the same side. 

So it could be said that Traditional Conservative support Unions, unfortunately thats abit simplistic because build into most Unions is an assumption that we reject. The assumption comes from Marxism and it says that every class is in conflict with every other class. Meaning that the working class and the management class are always at war, they are enemies and the working relationship is one of exploitation. The management class is always trying to exploit the working class. They cannot help themselves, only those who support the workers can see this clearly and as they can see it they can fight it. Ultimately only a Socialist or even better a Communist society can stop this exploitation.

This explains why Industrial disputes get so bitter, many Unionists believe they are always being exploited and they act accordingly. No matter how Management is really behaving. This is in reality in no ones interest as it hurts everyone.

Traditional Conservatives reject absolutely the idea of class warfare. We believe that different social classes provide mutual support and help those in each class to perform the jobs and tasks best suited to them. As each social class performs different tasks they cannot be enemies as they rely on the other social classes to perform tasks they cannot. 

In short Labourers are as important to society as Doctors, it could be argued that Labourers are more important as society would cease to function quite quickly without Labourers. Without them who would load the trucks, or repair roads, or pick up our garbage. Not having any Doctors is only a problem for the sick or injured, in time that will include us all. That might be years or even decades away, there is no way our society can survive for anywhere near a year without manual labour. There are no surplus areas of society. We believe in a balanced society, not in class conflict.



Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

A World of Mercenaries

A World of Mercenaries 

Are you good at sport? I mean very good, good enough to be in the top competition? The answer is most likely the same as I would give, no. Well let us pretend that you are that good, at least until the end of the article.

Your so good that everyone around who's even vaguely interested in your sport and lives locally knows it. You've heard it from people you respect and soon the scouts come looking for you. They offer you big money, alot more than you've every seen before. But what do you think people would say if you turned the scouts down? Would they admire you or think you were mad? I'm sure it would all be alright when you explained that you would rather stay with you local team and live a life without all of the trappings that come with that sort of life.

In time people would move on but I doubt you would ever really live down the idea that you gave away fame and fortune for loyalty. People would shake theirs heads in disbelieve. Because it is so accepted that when we hear the sirens call we will answer, that we are powerless to resist. Most don't have a good reason to turn down an offer like that. But every time I see teams recruiting I think of all of the broken loyalties, of all the players joining teams they couldn't care less about.

Just the other day I saw young footballers on tv who had been drafted by teams they didn't barrack for, effectively renouncing the teams they had supported and I wondered if I was the only one shaking my head. I don't blame these young men, they are simply doing what they have been taught is right. That Loyalty is for sale.

But it's not just sports were the world of the mercenary exists. Business is of course the real home of the mercenary. Not because Business is without scruples but because when your goal is simplified to only making money how can it really matter if you make it in a good way or a bad way?

Only a few years ago a large Australian company lost hundreds of millions of dollars in a year and the executives still got bonuses, when confronted about this the CEO said that the board had no choice but to pay the bonuses because the year before they had lost money and not paid bonuses and executives had left. As hard as it may be to believe, but once upon a time, not that long ago executives expected to serve most of the their career at the same company and they stayed loyal to the company because it was loyal to them. It seems that when you treat your executives as mercenaries thats exactly what they become.

I for one am opposed to the world of the mercenary.



Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Some Link Love

Some Link Love

I don't think I've ever had a post of just links to other good sites. But I thought I should let people know that others also have great things to say.

Mr. Mark Richardson of Oz Coservative fame has a great post reputing the idea of "the other".

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/on-fidelity.html

Mr. Basil Conrad has a fantastic article putting forward a Conservative argument against foreign aid at Tweed Renegades.

http://www.tweedrenegades.com/index.php/blog/item/239-you-dont-have-to-be-selfish-to-oppose-foreign-aid

Mr. Luke Torrisi over at the Traditionalist Sydney Forum has a nice take for Conservatives, with a reply from me and two very thoughtful replies back.

http://sydneytrads.com/2013/11/06/torrisi-6/

And last but not least, Mrs. Laura Wood is The Thinking Housewife, if you don't know this site check it out and if you like it remember she's on a Fundraiser at the moment (I just donated before I put this post together).

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/


Enjoy these articles and I'll have another post up soon.
Mark Moncrieff

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Sunday, 17 November 2013

Full Male Employment

Full Male Employment

No matter what your political beliefs are, if you went to a party and you met a man who worked and his wife who stayed at home and looked after their children you wouldn't think much about it, you would probably think of them as a nice, boring and normal couple. But for decades we have had a push to destroy this nice, boring and normal couple. To get her out into the workplace so she can compete against him. But the cost of such a society is high, economically, socially and personally.

I would like to state right off the bat that women have always worked and they have worked hard. Both in the home and outside and that should not be forgotten. But there is a great difference between need and desire. In the past women who worked needed to work, many still do. It is the desire to work that creates problems because nearly every women who works for desire is competing against a man. Those who work because they need to work may also be competing against men but most will seek work in jobs were they are needed and by default men are scarcer.

If you want to see quite starkly a society in which male employment is not seen as important one of the most visible is Black America. One of violence and anti-social behaviour, one of high rates of illegitimate births and low marriage rates and high divorce rates, one of macho and peter panism were the difference between men and boys is size and often not behaviour. If the men in this community had full time permanent jobs with a decent rate of pay I believe that these problems would start to sort themselves out, not totally but in large part. Unfortunately what has happened to Black America is the future of the entire Working Class worldwide unless something is done to stop Liberalism. Certainly Black America is not alone in having these problems but they are the most visible and here we can see the failed attempts to fix these issues and why they will constantly fail. All over the Western world we see women being given preferential treatment in employment, some of this is due to their education, something I'll do a post on at a later date.

Jane Austen wrote "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." The only thing I would add is that by fortune I would take it to mean that a man has enough income that he can look after his own needs and still has money enough to have realistic plans for the future. But unless a single man wins lots of money on the lottery or some other form of gambling, inherits or steals the money, he needs a job. One that pays enough for him to live on and some extra so that he can save and start to plan for the future. It also needs to be permanent and not casual or stopping and starting. Once these conditions are met then we will start to see benefits. He will be self sufficient, he will gain confidence and be more appealing to women. He will often desire permanence and will want to marry and have children. The present and the future are happening together.

But when a man is denied a permanent job, he will not have a regular and sufficient income. He will not be in most cases able to have a permanent relationship and if he has children they will not be born within marriage and he will in most cases be unable to support them himself. So instead of him having a job and looking after his own children, other people with jobs will be taxed to support his children. Talk about uneconomical!

When women work the opposite happens, the more money they have the less men are available for them to marry as they still want what nature has always wanted them to desire, a man capable of looking after them. So if a women makes $100,000 it doesn't really matter what a man makes as she is quite able to support herself and him. But that is not what she wants, it is not what nature wants either, the man in her life must be able to look after her, so roughly $100,000 is now the minimum income required to date this women. Of course women are individuals and you will find exceptions but it must be remembered that is what they are, exceptions.

A womens earning capacity destroys her chances of marrying but a mans earning capacity increases his.

A world were women are 50% of wage earners is a world in which Traditional Marriage is constantly under threat. Economically, Socially and personally the best arrangement is for a man to work in a full time permanent job and for his wife not to work. Economically double income families add to the cost of everything. Houses cost more, education, particularly Higher Education cost more, even insurance costs more as everyone factors in that everyone has a dual income. So instead of getting ahead of the rest your merely keeping up. Unless one of you stops working, then your falling behind. Economically double income families make no sense. For those who never marry it puts much of life out of reach.

For Traditional Conservative's supporting Full Male Employment has no drawbacks. It satisfy's us as being economically sustainable, socially it creates families and supports them and personally it supports men being men and women being women instead of pretending that we are all just equal and the same. While those who are not Traditional Conservatives will scoff and talk about discrimination, why isn't it that they never want to discuss the discrimination against the men and women who can never marry?



Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Free Enterprise and Traditional Conservatism

Free Enterprise and Traditional Conservatism

One area Traditional Conservatism is weak is economics, which is interesting as most other Political Philosophies have economics front and centre. In fact some of them seem to be economic theories with political ideas added later. But Traditional Conservatives often seem to know instinctively what economic ideas they support and which they reject. But because we don't tend to talk about it, it becomes hard to answer questions about why we believe in some things but not in others. To some we seem inconsistent because we often oppose what is regarded by most as the "Conservative" answer. I hope to provide some of the answers here.

The standard "Conservative" economic view looks something like this, Conservatives believe in Capitalism, creating wealth and not putting stops on money, for example taxes or controls on the movement of money. But that isn't Conservative, it's Right or Economic Liberalism. We do share somethings in common but we do not share everything.

First of all the word Capitalism was coined by Marxists in the 19th century to describe how Factories and Companies gathered money or capital together, hence the term Capitalism. It is a word that was taken up and used even by non-Marxists but it is not the same thing as Free Enterprise. Free Enterprise is the private ownership of wealth and the means of creating wealth, it is not about assembling money or capital, it is about ownership, effort, self sacrifice and self reward. Traditional Conservatives support Free Enterprise.  

The two biggest economic problems that need answers are how to create wealth and employment, if an economic system cannot provide answers to both it's not working. An economic system that provided the answer to one but not the other is simply not good enough. Why are they both important?

Because without creating wealth an economy cannot survive, it does not need constant growth but it does need more growth than contractions. A contraction is the oppose of growth, when the economy shrinks in size. Just as we are not constantly happy, the same applies to the economy and there are both good times and bad. When it is good the economy grows, when it is bad it contracts. The growth is required to allow for those times when the economy is not growing, we live off the fat that was produced in the good times. If there is constant contraction then it is only a matter of time before the economy dies, then it's bad times all round, the creation of wealth is that important.

Just as the creation of permanent employment is important, for without permanent employment there is no joy to be gained by creating wealth. Wealth should exist to solve problems not to create them and when society is unbalanced thats a problem. As I've said before it is not that some people are rich and others aren't that is the problem, we believe in different social classes, but that in a country of plenty there should not be people who are trapped out of the economy. The wealth should be enjoyed by as many as possible. That means that all social classes should benefit not only one social class. In short we believe in social stability and without permanent employment people cannot afford to marry or have a family, it is a great wrong to both the individual and to society as a whole. Permanent employment spreads wealth and allows people to be self sufficient.

Another thing we are quite keen on is small and local. A local business owned by locals, means that nearly all of the benefits from that business will accrue to the local community. The money spent in the business will support local jobs and most of the profit and wages will also be spent locally. Unfortunately that cannot always be said of large businesses. They accrue money from all over and it often goes far far away. But we also like practical and sometimes small and local is not practical. So we are not against large business just for the sake of it.

We do however believe that there should be a level playing field. That businesses no matter there size should be able to compete on an equal footing with any other business. That brings Government into the equation, Government has an important role to play in the economy. It should 1) set standards and enforce rules, 2) it should build and maintain infrastructure and the functions of Government and 3) it should control all monopolies.

There are some who say that Government is too overbearing and that it should mind it's own business, the problem is the economy is it's business. It relies on the efficient running of the economy to finance it, all taxation relies on a functioning economy. To be involved in the economy and to set rules and to enforce them is a legitimate role of Government.

Just as in society were we believe in a balanced society so we believe in a balanced economy. An economy that benefits the most amount of people and not just special interests. An economy that spreads wealth through employment and local ownership instead of through wealth redistribution. An economy that encourages both self sufficiency and community instead of dependency. These aims are not unreasonable or unrealistic and if they came to pass they would help keep alot of people happy and very few unhappy.....at least economically.


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

 

Monday, 11 November 2013

The Eighth Month

The Eighth Month

Another good month, I've been happy to see Posts that haven't been linked to by others are in the top 10. Another thing that I've been quite happy about is how many people are finding the site by asking Google direct questions, such as asking, "traditional meaning of politics" or "is loneliness normal in adulthood" or "traditional conservatism". I cannot complain about Google at all. I'm also happy that the tenth country this month is double what the tenth country was last month, 24 instead of 11.

My best day was the 2nd of November when I had 88 visitors and my worst was the 19th of October when I had 15. Both are extreme, my average is around 40 visitors a day.

As always each month is from the 11th of one month to the 11th of the next month.

October - November
EntryPageviews
United States
577
Australia
154
China
67
United Kingdom
65
Indonesia
34
France
29
Romania
29
Ukraine
27
Japan
25
Canada
24

September - October
EntryPageviews
United States
491
Australia
210
United Kingdom
51
France
38
Russia
37
China
34
Ukraine
30
Netherlands
13
Germany
12
Canada
11

My American readership keeps on it's steady rise upwards, which I'm very glad to see.

Interestingly my Chinese readership has nearly doubled as has Canadian, which has more than doubled, admittedly from a very low base. 

I also had a nice rise in numbers from the United Kingdom.

While both Indonesia and Japan have jumped into the top 10 and Romania is back.

The Ukraine is slightly down and France has fallen in numbers, but not by much.

My biggest disappointment has been my own country of Australia, my numbers have gone down by a quarter, what makes this particularly strange is that I wrote articles that were concerning Australia. I wonder if it's because my fellow Australians disagree with me or because a Right Liberal Government is now in power and people feel the country is now in safer hands?

Russia, the Netherlands and Germany have fallen out of the top 10, I still see visitors from those countries so it may just be that because the lower end of the table has risen they aren't being shown. 

Other countries that have stopped by are Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Serbia, Bulgaria, Saudi Arabia, India, South Korea, the Philippines, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. As always I'm glad to have you and I hope you find something to make you think on this site. If you have a question or comment, even a constructive criticism I'm listening.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Moncrieff


Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future