Destroying the Aussie Backyard
A few days ago I was out delivering my political pamphlets when only a street away from my house I saw a development planning permit sign on a front lawn. I stopped to read it and it stated that planning permission had been sort to demolish the present house on the site and to build 6 double story units in it's place. Now the current house is no great shakes and in fact is quite unattractive. The 6 units will quite possibly be an improvement, visually. But I am against this "development".
Melbourne where I live is in many respects two cities, the old inner city suburbs are very much like a European city and the post war suburbs which are much more "American". By "American", I mean suburban like you see on American TV shows. A single house on a single block of land, surrounded by other houses on their own block of land. And much more car dependent than the inner city suburbs. One difference with America is it's quite rare for a house not to have a fence around it here.
Every suburb I have lived in has been a post war suburb, with good sized houses and big blocks of land, quarter acre blocks were the standard size on which post war houses were built. The house was big enough but certainly not "McMansions", but the back yards were huge. The people who lived in these suburban houses were families, a Father, a Mother and their children and pets, there were always pets around. It was in many respects the perfect environment in which to raise a family and to enjoy family life. I remember my Step-Father was quite a greenthumb and he would plant vegetables and my brother and I were paid a bounty for each moth we caught, to protect the vegetables. The lawn had fruit trees and when I was young we had ducks and chickens. I didn't live in the country but in an ordinary Australian working class suburban home. All around me were pleasant surroundings and some outstanding houses and gardens. Many of them are still around, in fact when I go delivering my pamphlets I see parts of my current suburb that are very nice.
But I wonder and worry about the future because the pressures on these houses and their backyards is increasing all the time. I have noticed a lot less pets than there used to be. Families have pets, families that do not struggle from week to week just to survive. Does the lack of pets mean that there are no families? Or does it mean that the families are gone and the parents are now older? Or does it mean that immigrants are now living there? In my experience immigrants for whatever reason don't have many pets, of course there are exceptions. I suspect that all of these things are happening.
Another thing I have noticed is just how many of the post war houses are gone, having been replaced by units. Once upon a time they were called flats, but now they are nearly always called units or townhouses. Normally individual houses built on a single block of land with no fences dividing them and a common driveway. All of the disadvantages of inner city living with all of the disadvantages of outer suburban living. As with the above example a single family home with a backyard for children and animals to play in are destroyed and replaced by 6 units. The units are great places for single people, lots of room, still good for a couple, but once you have children you might as well live in a high rise as in the suburbs. Housing that is designed to increase loneliness and to discourage families.
Of course the reason isn't that people demand it as the various levels of Government insist, and that the builders and developers say. The reason is because of failed social policies and money. The political parties push policies that encourage being alone, divorce and other failed marriage policies, feminism and other policies that encourage men and women to compete against each other. People find it hard to find a partner or to hang on to one. They don't demand smaller houses, instead they are left with no other option as they cannot afford to maintain a house and backyard by themselves. Then add to the mix immigration, wave after wave with no end in sight pushing up prices and making it harder to get either a rental property or to buy a home. Constant competition in every area of life. Then we have those who make money off of this misery, they claim they are simply doing what people want, they claim they are "developers", they claim that they are simple businessmen, big and small, who if they didn't do the job someone else would, maybe.
At every level money is pushing the pressure on housing, buy a single house, bulldozer it and sell 6 on the same land, how can you fail to make money? You might not get as much for each unit but in total you've made a killing. Not much to discourage this, smaller families, mean more money, no families just single people, means more money, then add immigration to the mix, wow how the money just makes it's self. Of course putting one family into a house is how the suburb was designed to function, but now 6 different households live on the same amount of land. Instead of one, maybe two family cars, you have closer to 6 cars. Now thats not a problem once or twice, but there is no sign of this ever stopping. All around here more family homes are destroyed and more units are built. The roads are not getting any wider, but the traffic is getting worse. Now multiply that by every suburb in Melbourne and you start to see just how insane this all is. Because of course this is not just happening a few streets away from me, but everywhere. The policies of Right Liberalism, that nothing should be allowed to get in the way of making money has joined hands with the social chaos of Left Liberalism to create more "freedom through loneliness".
Destroying the Aussie backyard is the symbol of a dying world, one I grew up in. The family that was once strong is destroyed. The working class that was once strong is destroyed. White Australia that was once strong is destroyed with it. The destruction is about more than just a backyard.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Loneliness Epidemic
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
Friday, 23 May 2014
Taxes, Budgets and the Economy
Taxes, Budgets and the Economy
Governments have great power over our lives, so why do we allow them to have such power? The short answer is that Government provides a level of stability that no other human institution is capable of. In return for that stability we give power to the Government. At some points Governments demand more power and sometimes they get it. But there is a limit to how much power a Government can exercise, practical as well as ethical. But to function at all the Government needs money and in nearly all cases they get that from taxation.
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the market value of all goods and services produced within a year within a country. 100% of GDP is all of the value created within a country in a year, 50% is half of the value and so forth. The vast majority of taxation must come from GDP, some might come from an inheritance tax which technically taxes past GDP but these are rare. The current GDP provides nearly all goods and services, all food produced, all rents and mortgages, all wages etc. are part of GDP. So when a country owes 100% of it's GDP, it owes everything created within that country that year. So Governments cannot tax at 100% because then no one could eat or pay rent or in fact do anything. Of course a Government cannot tax at 0% either as then it has no money to do anything. Somewhere between 100% and 0% is where tax revenue needs to be, the question is where?
But before we can answer that we need to talk abit about the budget, what the Government is going to spend money on. Before the 1870's Governments spent money on a few core areas of responsibility, War and Foreign Affairs being the big two, in the 1870's education and public health joined them and in the early 1900's the welfare state started by providing pensions, disability and unemployment benefits. During the First World War Governments took control of large areas of the economy to fight the war. This gave many people the idea that if the Government could do these things during wartime why couldn't it do the same to improve society in peacetime. Government expenditure rose and stayed much higher than it had before the war. To give some idea of that expenditure this site gives figures for the United Kingdom from 1692 to today, http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ , I highly recommend it if your interested in such things.
1910 16% of GDP
1930 29% of GDP
1950 36% of GDP
1970 42% of GDP
1990 35% of GDP
2010 46% of GDP
The worst year was 1945 when 70% of GDP was taken as tax revenue, but of course that was during wartime. The years I have given above are years of peace or at least not years of general war. You will notice that between 1910 and 1930 the level of taxation as a percentage of GDP doubles, then remains around 40% after the Second World War until the GFC when it has risen again. Now of course not all countries resemble the United Kingdom but as a general guide I believe it to be quite correct in showing the general levels of taxation as a percentage of GDP.
Modern budgets include many items that once would have been regarded as far outside of the realm of Government. But not all of these are outside of a Governments prime responsibility, to provide stability. So to answer the question of what should a Government spend money on, first we must answer does a particular budget item contribute to stability.
If it does then it should probably stay, if not it should not.
There are two further things I want to discuss, firstly that a budget should, outside of war or other extreme emergency, always be either balanced or in surplus. If an item cannot be paid for then either taxes should rise to pay for it or it shouldn't happen. Since the Second World War there has been a disconnect between revenue and expenditure. That needs to end, as we all know, it's much easier to spend money then it is to save money. But the easy spend is a trap that leads straight to debt and in the case of Government, the debt is going to future Governments and future people. Debt is an insidious way of taxing the future, of taxing wealth that hasn't even been created yet.
The second thing is what percentage should be taxed to provide Government revenue? I believe that there is a sweet spot (not something you hear often when people talk about tax is it!), of 20%-30%. People expect things from Government that 100 years ago or more people would not have expected. There is a limit to how little revenue a Government needs to function and from looking at various sources it seems that anything less than 20% guarantees chronic debt. Anything over 30% seems to be a strain on the economy and I believe is counter productive. That may need to be amended as this only takes into consideration the national Government, but that is my only proviso. There needs to be a balance between what people expect from Government and what a Government can obtain as revenue.
To finish up budgets must be balanced or in surplus, the real enemy here is that short term thinking has taken over when what we need is long term plans and long term thinking.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employers and Employees
Governments have great power over our lives, so why do we allow them to have such power? The short answer is that Government provides a level of stability that no other human institution is capable of. In return for that stability we give power to the Government. At some points Governments demand more power and sometimes they get it. But there is a limit to how much power a Government can exercise, practical as well as ethical. But to function at all the Government needs money and in nearly all cases they get that from taxation.
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the market value of all goods and services produced within a year within a country. 100% of GDP is all of the value created within a country in a year, 50% is half of the value and so forth. The vast majority of taxation must come from GDP, some might come from an inheritance tax which technically taxes past GDP but these are rare. The current GDP provides nearly all goods and services, all food produced, all rents and mortgages, all wages etc. are part of GDP. So when a country owes 100% of it's GDP, it owes everything created within that country that year. So Governments cannot tax at 100% because then no one could eat or pay rent or in fact do anything. Of course a Government cannot tax at 0% either as then it has no money to do anything. Somewhere between 100% and 0% is where tax revenue needs to be, the question is where?
But before we can answer that we need to talk abit about the budget, what the Government is going to spend money on. Before the 1870's Governments spent money on a few core areas of responsibility, War and Foreign Affairs being the big two, in the 1870's education and public health joined them and in the early 1900's the welfare state started by providing pensions, disability and unemployment benefits. During the First World War Governments took control of large areas of the economy to fight the war. This gave many people the idea that if the Government could do these things during wartime why couldn't it do the same to improve society in peacetime. Government expenditure rose and stayed much higher than it had before the war. To give some idea of that expenditure this site gives figures for the United Kingdom from 1692 to today, http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ , I highly recommend it if your interested in such things.
1910 16% of GDP
1930 29% of GDP
1950 36% of GDP
1970 42% of GDP
1990 35% of GDP
2010 46% of GDP
The worst year was 1945 when 70% of GDP was taken as tax revenue, but of course that was during wartime. The years I have given above are years of peace or at least not years of general war. You will notice that between 1910 and 1930 the level of taxation as a percentage of GDP doubles, then remains around 40% after the Second World War until the GFC when it has risen again. Now of course not all countries resemble the United Kingdom but as a general guide I believe it to be quite correct in showing the general levels of taxation as a percentage of GDP.
Modern budgets include many items that once would have been regarded as far outside of the realm of Government. But not all of these are outside of a Governments prime responsibility, to provide stability. So to answer the question of what should a Government spend money on, first we must answer does a particular budget item contribute to stability.
If it does then it should probably stay, if not it should not.
There are two further things I want to discuss, firstly that a budget should, outside of war or other extreme emergency, always be either balanced or in surplus. If an item cannot be paid for then either taxes should rise to pay for it or it shouldn't happen. Since the Second World War there has been a disconnect between revenue and expenditure. That needs to end, as we all know, it's much easier to spend money then it is to save money. But the easy spend is a trap that leads straight to debt and in the case of Government, the debt is going to future Governments and future people. Debt is an insidious way of taxing the future, of taxing wealth that hasn't even been created yet.
The second thing is what percentage should be taxed to provide Government revenue? I believe that there is a sweet spot (not something you hear often when people talk about tax is it!), of 20%-30%. People expect things from Government that 100 years ago or more people would not have expected. There is a limit to how little revenue a Government needs to function and from looking at various sources it seems that anything less than 20% guarantees chronic debt. Anything over 30% seems to be a strain on the economy and I believe is counter productive. That may need to be amended as this only takes into consideration the national Government, but that is my only proviso. There needs to be a balance between what people expect from Government and what a Government can obtain as revenue.
To finish up budgets must be balanced or in surplus, the real enemy here is that short term thinking has taken over when what we need is long term plans and long term thinking.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Employers and Employees
Friday, 16 May 2014
A Disappointing Budget, A Disappointing Government
A Disappointing Budget, A Disappointing Government
I do not normally mention current political issues as mostly they are not that important and I wish to look at underlying principles. But two nights ago the Australian Federal Government released it's budget and I'm so disgusted and disappointed with both the budget and the current Liberal Government that I need to say something. For Foreign readers the Liberal Party in Australia is on the right and the Labor Party is on the left and since September 2013 we have had a Liberal Government. What most political commentators call "Conservative", but which I do not.
Under the last Government, a Labor Government, Australia went from having a surplus to being hundreds of billions in debt and all within 5 years. They also left a number of budgetary time bombs, promise big spending now, but only hand over the money in future years. All of this means that our Federal Government debt will head into roughly 80% of GDP, it's about half that now, if left unchecked. The current Government promised a horror budget and they delivered on it. Some of it is tough but needed, some is tough and in time we may see they were right, but the rest is just bloody mindedness and incredibly stupid. It is so bad that it seems designed to improve the political fortunes of the Labor Party!
Let me start with some of the good things:
Foreign aid was cut, Labor increased this greatly. Foreign aid should have a clear national goal, it should not be a prop for foreign Governments unable to collect revenue or manage their own finances.
Middle Class welfare was cut, this will hurt alot of families but I think it has gotten out of hand and needs to be scaled back.
Reducing the Public Service, I am not someone who is opposed to the Public Service, they do good and vital work. Sadly Labor has a habit of hiring more than needed for political gain. I just hope that the Liberals handle it well, sadly this budget doesn't bode well.
Here are some of the tough but might still be right:
Before the election the Liberal Party promised to balance the budget and to change nothing, it was never possible but people wanted Labor gone. Now those broken promises have come back to bite the Liberals and they are denying that they have broken any promises. I'm sorry but even blind Freddy can see that they have. You cannot say no tax increases, increase tax and then say it's not a tax but a levy. There is no difference and everyone knows it. Having said that I do believe they may be right.
A 2% Debt levy on all incomes earners over $180,000 a year.
Fuel Excise increase, basically more tax on fuel.
A $7 co-payment to go to the doctors. Australia has whats called Medicare and all wage earners pay into it and it provides free medical care for all Australians. Unfortunately medical costs keep going up and some people abuse the system. A small payment may help solve this problem. I know of a Government scheme that provided free mental health care, but because it was free people didn't treat it with respect. A $5 fee was introduced and it changed people's behavour. Incredible but true. The co-payment is not unlimited but cuts out after so many visits. Sadly again the Liberals have done this badly, they have told Doctors that they do not need to charge a co-payment if they object but they will lose 25% of their income because Medicare won't pay them the full amount if they don't.
The stupid things:
Youth Allowance extended until age 25. You are not a youth when you are 24 years of age, it is a step in the wrong direction.
Unemployed people under 30 must wait for 6 months until they receive any financial support and then must do "work for the dole". How does someone live for 6 months with no income? The Treasurer Mr. Hockey in interviews is quite clear that he doesn't care. The aim of this policy is to force young people into jobs but it will not work. Instead it will encourage people to "work" the system. Want to see if a new job works out but don't want to lose your benefits for 6 months if it doesn't? Lie. This is a recipe for social disaster.
Continuing the failure of the "earn or learn" policy. This policy means you either need to be earning a wage or learning at University or in a trade. In theory it's fine, but the reality is it encourages mindless education and degree getting for no purpose. If I have 3 degrees but you have 5 I guess you must be a better clerk than me. It pays no attention to job creation and ignores the reality that people live with in the economy.
Increasing University fees. Again this would be fine if jobs exist for graduates to go into and by jobs I mean jobs that need a university degree. This is a very expensive way to hide the real unemployment figures.
Cutting wages increases for Public servants and Politicians for a year, but Pensioners and the Unemployed for 4 years. The Liberals talked about spreading the pain of the budget around but it seems some must feel the pain more than others, very unfair.
Continuing to fund future time bombs such as the NDIS, Gonski and the Parental Leave Scheme. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Gonski School funding and the Parental Leave Scheme are all expensive turkeys. The NDIS and Gonski have not started and should be scrapped before they start. The Parental Leave Scheme is a new form of Middle Class welfare designed by the Liberals and also not currently in operation, it should also be scrapped.
And after all this we will still owe $300 billion in a decade's time!
This Government has proven to be a massive disappointment and Mr. Hockey's statements in interviews have been some of the worst things I have ever heard a Minister of the Crown say. I am finding it very uncomfortable having to agree with the left and having to admit that when they accused the Liberals of being heartless and only caring for Business, they were right. This budget is in no way a Conservative budget, in any sense of the word. It is an economically Liberal budget with a view of society that does not say we are all in this together but instead says society is divided into winners and losers. That is quite disgraceful!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism, Just Another Branch of Liberalism I
I do not normally mention current political issues as mostly they are not that important and I wish to look at underlying principles. But two nights ago the Australian Federal Government released it's budget and I'm so disgusted and disappointed with both the budget and the current Liberal Government that I need to say something. For Foreign readers the Liberal Party in Australia is on the right and the Labor Party is on the left and since September 2013 we have had a Liberal Government. What most political commentators call "Conservative", but which I do not.
Under the last Government, a Labor Government, Australia went from having a surplus to being hundreds of billions in debt and all within 5 years. They also left a number of budgetary time bombs, promise big spending now, but only hand over the money in future years. All of this means that our Federal Government debt will head into roughly 80% of GDP, it's about half that now, if left unchecked. The current Government promised a horror budget and they delivered on it. Some of it is tough but needed, some is tough and in time we may see they were right, but the rest is just bloody mindedness and incredibly stupid. It is so bad that it seems designed to improve the political fortunes of the Labor Party!
Let me start with some of the good things:
Foreign aid was cut, Labor increased this greatly. Foreign aid should have a clear national goal, it should not be a prop for foreign Governments unable to collect revenue or manage their own finances.
Middle Class welfare was cut, this will hurt alot of families but I think it has gotten out of hand and needs to be scaled back.
Reducing the Public Service, I am not someone who is opposed to the Public Service, they do good and vital work. Sadly Labor has a habit of hiring more than needed for political gain. I just hope that the Liberals handle it well, sadly this budget doesn't bode well.
Here are some of the tough but might still be right:
Before the election the Liberal Party promised to balance the budget and to change nothing, it was never possible but people wanted Labor gone. Now those broken promises have come back to bite the Liberals and they are denying that they have broken any promises. I'm sorry but even blind Freddy can see that they have. You cannot say no tax increases, increase tax and then say it's not a tax but a levy. There is no difference and everyone knows it. Having said that I do believe they may be right.
A 2% Debt levy on all incomes earners over $180,000 a year.
Fuel Excise increase, basically more tax on fuel.
A $7 co-payment to go to the doctors. Australia has whats called Medicare and all wage earners pay into it and it provides free medical care for all Australians. Unfortunately medical costs keep going up and some people abuse the system. A small payment may help solve this problem. I know of a Government scheme that provided free mental health care, but because it was free people didn't treat it with respect. A $5 fee was introduced and it changed people's behavour. Incredible but true. The co-payment is not unlimited but cuts out after so many visits. Sadly again the Liberals have done this badly, they have told Doctors that they do not need to charge a co-payment if they object but they will lose 25% of their income because Medicare won't pay them the full amount if they don't.
The stupid things:
Youth Allowance extended until age 25. You are not a youth when you are 24 years of age, it is a step in the wrong direction.
Unemployed people under 30 must wait for 6 months until they receive any financial support and then must do "work for the dole". How does someone live for 6 months with no income? The Treasurer Mr. Hockey in interviews is quite clear that he doesn't care. The aim of this policy is to force young people into jobs but it will not work. Instead it will encourage people to "work" the system. Want to see if a new job works out but don't want to lose your benefits for 6 months if it doesn't? Lie. This is a recipe for social disaster.
Continuing the failure of the "earn or learn" policy. This policy means you either need to be earning a wage or learning at University or in a trade. In theory it's fine, but the reality is it encourages mindless education and degree getting for no purpose. If I have 3 degrees but you have 5 I guess you must be a better clerk than me. It pays no attention to job creation and ignores the reality that people live with in the economy.
Increasing University fees. Again this would be fine if jobs exist for graduates to go into and by jobs I mean jobs that need a university degree. This is a very expensive way to hide the real unemployment figures.
Cutting wages increases for Public servants and Politicians for a year, but Pensioners and the Unemployed for 4 years. The Liberals talked about spreading the pain of the budget around but it seems some must feel the pain more than others, very unfair.
Continuing to fund future time bombs such as the NDIS, Gonski and the Parental Leave Scheme. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Gonski School funding and the Parental Leave Scheme are all expensive turkeys. The NDIS and Gonski have not started and should be scrapped before they start. The Parental Leave Scheme is a new form of Middle Class welfare designed by the Liberals and also not currently in operation, it should also be scrapped.
And after all this we will still owe $300 billion in a decade's time!
This Government has proven to be a massive disappointment and Mr. Hockey's statements in interviews have been some of the worst things I have ever heard a Minister of the Crown say. I am finding it very uncomfortable having to agree with the left and having to admit that when they accused the Liberals of being heartless and only caring for Business, they were right. This budget is in no way a Conservative budget, in any sense of the word. It is an economically Liberal budget with a view of society that does not say we are all in this together but instead says society is divided into winners and losers. That is quite disgraceful!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Feminism, Just Another Branch of Liberalism I
Tuesday, 13 May 2014
A Short History of Secularism - A Book Review
A Short History of Secularism - A Book Review
A Short History of Secularism by Graeme Smith
There are a number of interesting things in this book, but first let me begin with the title, it is short at abit over 200 pages, but it is not a history nor is it really about secularism. A better and more accurate title might have been "The Ethics Society" as it is this idea that informs the book and gives it it's main arguments, of which there are two.
The Author Graeme Smith is interested in how religion fits into the modern world and he makes some interesting insights. He makes an attempt to show how Liberalism is an offshoot of Christianity, a claim I myself have made. But it seems to me that he cannot decide whether he believes they are one and the same, Liberalism being the modern version of Christianity or whether he believes they are related but still distinct.
But before he gets to this point he looks at the question of just how religious are modern people? He is British so much of the information is about Britain, with that caveat I still think it is of wider use. He points out that just because people are secular does not mean that they are Atheists or Agnostics. In fact he points out how resistant people have been to both trains of thought as most people still believe in God. What they have a harder time supporting is not God but religion, particularly organised religion. Here he makes another claim that is quite interesting, he asserts that we have a false view of the religious past. The first reliable surveys on church attendance took place in Victorian times and he asserts that the Victorians were bigger church goers than either the people who came after them or the people who came before. So what we are seeing is not an Atheistic society but a return to a more "normal" situation. And that we are confusing church attendance with faith, when they are two separate things.
He also claims that modern people still have faith in God and still try to live their lives in a "Godly" way. They still live with Christian ethics in both their private and public life, even if they do not acknowledge it. The Enlightenment changed the "technology", or how people saw and thought about how the world worked. The old "technology" was that God made everything and that religion and science were regarded as basically the same thing. The new "technology" that arose from the Enlightenment was that science could explain how the world worked and that religion had either little or no place in this arena. Religion was only to be about God and not about how the world was ordered. Those who support a secular world have asserted for centuries that we no longer need God to explain the world so he is no longer needed and that in time people will realise that they do not need God and that he will die a natural death. But instead people have accepted the new "technology" and they still believe in God, even if they are not particularly religious.
Smith then looks at what he calls "the ethics society", that even though God doesn't provide answers as to how the world came to exist or even how it currently exists. People still not only believe in God, but they still believe that ethics are important. That some behaviour is good and that other behaviour is bad and that for most people what they regard as good is Christian. In other words a peoples history is very deep within them and the Christianity of our ancestors lives within us. Including their ideas about Christian ethics and the reason is because while the new "technology", secularism, might be able to inform us about how to, for example, amputate an arm, it has not provided the reasoning behind the decision. Instead secularism, often called Liberalism, simply took Christian ethics and made them it's own. Modern Liberals are using Christian ethics to explain how and why things should be done or conversely not done.
Only 4 pages from the end of the book Smith writes this paragraph, which he entitles The Good Liberal Society:
"My main contention has been that Western secular society should be thought of as the ethics society. As such, it is a society primarily concerned with ethical issues, and the concern for ethics is discernibly Christian, but I want to argue more than this. Many of the conclusions reached by Western liberal and secular society are recognizably Christian. By this I mean that the situation of marginalized and excluded people cannot be ignored by social and political leaders. This is not an easy case to argue. There is a dilemma of how to speak well of a society that knows itself to be failing. It would in many ways be better not to have to make the case. But the strength of criticisms made by those who regard liberal society as anti-Christian mean the attempt is necessary. So it is necessary to take the risk of praising that which could be far better. This is the dilemma of the ethics society. It is not meant to lead to political complacency; quite the opposite. The Western liberal political order is capable of good, as well as bad and so deserves our serious attention."
Here Smith acknowledges that society is failing but he still defends it. I am abit confused as to why, but I accept that my own prejudices may be too blame. If your interested in a history of secularism don't read this book because it is not that. If you want to read about Christianity and it's connection to modern Liberalism then it's quite interesting.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Meanings of Word "Politics"
A Short History of Secularism by Graeme Smith
There are a number of interesting things in this book, but first let me begin with the title, it is short at abit over 200 pages, but it is not a history nor is it really about secularism. A better and more accurate title might have been "The Ethics Society" as it is this idea that informs the book and gives it it's main arguments, of which there are two.
The Author Graeme Smith is interested in how religion fits into the modern world and he makes some interesting insights. He makes an attempt to show how Liberalism is an offshoot of Christianity, a claim I myself have made. But it seems to me that he cannot decide whether he believes they are one and the same, Liberalism being the modern version of Christianity or whether he believes they are related but still distinct.
But before he gets to this point he looks at the question of just how religious are modern people? He is British so much of the information is about Britain, with that caveat I still think it is of wider use. He points out that just because people are secular does not mean that they are Atheists or Agnostics. In fact he points out how resistant people have been to both trains of thought as most people still believe in God. What they have a harder time supporting is not God but religion, particularly organised religion. Here he makes another claim that is quite interesting, he asserts that we have a false view of the religious past. The first reliable surveys on church attendance took place in Victorian times and he asserts that the Victorians were bigger church goers than either the people who came after them or the people who came before. So what we are seeing is not an Atheistic society but a return to a more "normal" situation. And that we are confusing church attendance with faith, when they are two separate things.
He also claims that modern people still have faith in God and still try to live their lives in a "Godly" way. They still live with Christian ethics in both their private and public life, even if they do not acknowledge it. The Enlightenment changed the "technology", or how people saw and thought about how the world worked. The old "technology" was that God made everything and that religion and science were regarded as basically the same thing. The new "technology" that arose from the Enlightenment was that science could explain how the world worked and that religion had either little or no place in this arena. Religion was only to be about God and not about how the world was ordered. Those who support a secular world have asserted for centuries that we no longer need God to explain the world so he is no longer needed and that in time people will realise that they do not need God and that he will die a natural death. But instead people have accepted the new "technology" and they still believe in God, even if they are not particularly religious.
Smith then looks at what he calls "the ethics society", that even though God doesn't provide answers as to how the world came to exist or even how it currently exists. People still not only believe in God, but they still believe that ethics are important. That some behaviour is good and that other behaviour is bad and that for most people what they regard as good is Christian. In other words a peoples history is very deep within them and the Christianity of our ancestors lives within us. Including their ideas about Christian ethics and the reason is because while the new "technology", secularism, might be able to inform us about how to, for example, amputate an arm, it has not provided the reasoning behind the decision. Instead secularism, often called Liberalism, simply took Christian ethics and made them it's own. Modern Liberals are using Christian ethics to explain how and why things should be done or conversely not done.
Only 4 pages from the end of the book Smith writes this paragraph, which he entitles The Good Liberal Society:
"My main contention has been that Western secular society should be thought of as the ethics society. As such, it is a society primarily concerned with ethical issues, and the concern for ethics is discernibly Christian, but I want to argue more than this. Many of the conclusions reached by Western liberal and secular society are recognizably Christian. By this I mean that the situation of marginalized and excluded people cannot be ignored by social and political leaders. This is not an easy case to argue. There is a dilemma of how to speak well of a society that knows itself to be failing. It would in many ways be better not to have to make the case. But the strength of criticisms made by those who regard liberal society as anti-Christian mean the attempt is necessary. So it is necessary to take the risk of praising that which could be far better. This is the dilemma of the ethics society. It is not meant to lead to political complacency; quite the opposite. The Western liberal political order is capable of good, as well as bad and so deserves our serious attention."
Here Smith acknowledges that society is failing but he still defends it. I am abit confused as to why, but I accept that my own prejudices may be too blame. If your interested in a history of secularism don't read this book because it is not that. If you want to read about Christianity and it's connection to modern Liberalism then it's quite interesting.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Meanings of Word "Politics"
Sunday, 11 May 2014
The Fourteenth Month
The Fourteenth Month
This hasn't been the best month, but still alright. The good news is I have 5 Continents in my top 10 list, but instead of Brazil, this time I have South Africa. Different Continent but I still like it!
A note on the most read articles, in the past I have noted that it was not in the correct order but it is now. The most read article on the site is Free Trade Versus Protectionism which has been read 751 times, next is Feminism, why we are not- Feminists at 676 and in third place is The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination which has been read 652 times. This month alone Free Trade Versus Protectionism has been read 275 times, the next read article, Some Link Love II has been read 40 times.
My worst day this month was yesterday the 10th of May when I only had 18 visitors, that is 10 less than the second worst day. The best day was the 20th of April when I had 86 visitors. As always the month is from the 11th of one month, in this case April, to the 11th of the next month, in this case May.
April - May
March - April
This hasn't been the best month, but still alright. The good news is I have 5 Continents in my top 10 list, but instead of Brazil, this time I have South Africa. Different Continent but I still like it!
A note on the most read articles, in the past I have noted that it was not in the correct order but it is now. The most read article on the site is Free Trade Versus Protectionism which has been read 751 times, next is Feminism, why we are not- Feminists at 676 and in third place is The Discrimination of Anti-Discrimination which has been read 652 times. This month alone Free Trade Versus Protectionism has been read 275 times, the next read article, Some Link Love II has been read 40 times.
My worst day this month was yesterday the 10th of May when I only had 18 visitors, that is 10 less than the second worst day. The best day was the 20th of April when I had 86 visitors. As always the month is from the 11th of one month, in this case April, to the 11th of the next month, in this case May.
April - May
March - April
The big news is South Africa and Spain are in for the first time and the Ukraine and Japan are back. Welcome!
China has risen slightly.
The United States is slightly down and Australia is 2/3 what it was last month. Germany is way down, Canada has halved and the United Kingdom is around 2/3 of what it was.
France, India, the Netherlands and Sweden have all left the top 10.
I have also been visited by people in the following countries: France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Malta, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Armenia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Iraq, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Tunisia, Sudan, Nigeria, Kenya, Namibia, Malawi, Mauritius, New Zealand, Dominican Republic, Barbados, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador,
It always amazes me to see so many people in so many countries coming to read what I have to say. I hope I see you again soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
Liberalism, Exalt the Individual, Blame the Individual
Liberalism, Exalt the Individual, Blame the Individual
At the heart of Liberalism is the belief that the individual is supreme, that the individual should not be held back by any outside restraint, some even say by any restraint. That the highest achievement in life is choice, to choose your own future and to not have it dictated. The idea is that people know what will make them happy and everyone else should stand out of the way. As long as it doesn't hurt other people then it should be allowed and encouraged. But what happens when your life doesn't work out as planned?
What happens when you become unemployed or your marriage breaks down or if you never marry? Well according to Liberalism you chose for these things to happen. The individual is supreme, they choose their reality and if in your reality you are divorced then you chose that reality. Now many people will find this idea makes them angry, "I didn't choose, it was thrust upon me", but sadly your opinion is not as important as their Ideology. And their Ideology says that you chose this outcome. The idea that forces exist beyond our control doesn't fit within Liberalism because that would remove the idea that the individual is supreme.
It is this idea that allows Right or Economic Liberals to blame unemployment on the unemployed, if they weren't so lazy or fussy then they would have jobs. Ironically they reject the economy as the reason for unemployment or the answer to unemployment. The individual is exalted and blamed, the individual is supreme and if he is supreme then why hasn't he found an answer to his problem? The answer must be because he doesn't want to find an answer. He's just lazy or fussy, he needs to change his attitude and change his reality.
The idea that immigration creates more competition is seen as a good thing not a bad thing, the idea that women working, particularly married women creates more competition is seen as a good thing not as a bad thing. The fact that many jobs, particularly working class jobs have been sent overseas isn't a good enough reason to be unemployed. The fact that most new jobs are temporary or casual isn't a good enough reason to be unemployed. It all comes back to the individual, if you were better as a person, better educated, better trained, better motivated then you would have a job. The fact that the job doesn't actually exist, is merely inconvenient because the individual is supreme.
It is this idea that allows Left or Social Liberals to blame divorce on the divorced, if they had chosen better then they might still be married. They then push for more marriage "reform" and use the argument that anyone should be able to marry, look at the divorce rate. People demand choice and that is what they are being given.
But the fact is that no where have people campaigned for more liberal divorce laws, they were given to us by Liberalism. They chose for us and told us it was for our own good. I guess it fits in the mold of you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs. The "omelette" they want is one where people chose to live the life that Left Liberalism wants and then to call it choice. You chose not to marry, it wasn't us, only losers aren't successful, are you a loser who couldn't get married or a winner who chose to not get married? Liberalism loves a winner, even when they lose.
If the individual is supreme then there is no higher authority, or reality. No higher forces, economic, social, legal etc. can be blamed for how life is. Life is about choices and you've made yours, even when the choices have been made for you. Remember the individual is supreme. Your responsible not us, Liberalism set you free. If your freedom means poverty then you chose that, if your freedom means loneliness then you chose that. Liberalism believes that the individual should be both exalted and blamed.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
16-of-20-profit
At the heart of Liberalism is the belief that the individual is supreme, that the individual should not be held back by any outside restraint, some even say by any restraint. That the highest achievement in life is choice, to choose your own future and to not have it dictated. The idea is that people know what will make them happy and everyone else should stand out of the way. As long as it doesn't hurt other people then it should be allowed and encouraged. But what happens when your life doesn't work out as planned?
What happens when you become unemployed or your marriage breaks down or if you never marry? Well according to Liberalism you chose for these things to happen. The individual is supreme, they choose their reality and if in your reality you are divorced then you chose that reality. Now many people will find this idea makes them angry, "I didn't choose, it was thrust upon me", but sadly your opinion is not as important as their Ideology. And their Ideology says that you chose this outcome. The idea that forces exist beyond our control doesn't fit within Liberalism because that would remove the idea that the individual is supreme.
It is this idea that allows Right or Economic Liberals to blame unemployment on the unemployed, if they weren't so lazy or fussy then they would have jobs. Ironically they reject the economy as the reason for unemployment or the answer to unemployment. The individual is exalted and blamed, the individual is supreme and if he is supreme then why hasn't he found an answer to his problem? The answer must be because he doesn't want to find an answer. He's just lazy or fussy, he needs to change his attitude and change his reality.
The idea that immigration creates more competition is seen as a good thing not a bad thing, the idea that women working, particularly married women creates more competition is seen as a good thing not as a bad thing. The fact that many jobs, particularly working class jobs have been sent overseas isn't a good enough reason to be unemployed. The fact that most new jobs are temporary or casual isn't a good enough reason to be unemployed. It all comes back to the individual, if you were better as a person, better educated, better trained, better motivated then you would have a job. The fact that the job doesn't actually exist, is merely inconvenient because the individual is supreme.
It is this idea that allows Left or Social Liberals to blame divorce on the divorced, if they had chosen better then they might still be married. They then push for more marriage "reform" and use the argument that anyone should be able to marry, look at the divorce rate. People demand choice and that is what they are being given.
But the fact is that no where have people campaigned for more liberal divorce laws, they were given to us by Liberalism. They chose for us and told us it was for our own good. I guess it fits in the mold of you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs. The "omelette" they want is one where people chose to live the life that Left Liberalism wants and then to call it choice. You chose not to marry, it wasn't us, only losers aren't successful, are you a loser who couldn't get married or a winner who chose to not get married? Liberalism loves a winner, even when they lose.
If the individual is supreme then there is no higher authority, or reality. No higher forces, economic, social, legal etc. can be blamed for how life is. Life is about choices and you've made yours, even when the choices have been made for you. Remember the individual is supreme. Your responsible not us, Liberalism set you free. If your freedom means poverty then you chose that, if your freedom means loneliness then you chose that. Liberalism believes that the individual should be both exalted and blamed.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
16-of-20-profit
Friday, 2 May 2014
Why I have Unlinked from The Tweed Renegades
Why I have Unlinked from The Tweed Renegades
In Australia and New Zealand the 25th of April is ANZAC day,
the day we commemorate our war dead and honour our veterans . It is a day on which patriotism is highly
prized by most people. ANZAC Day is also regarded by most as the most important
day of the year, of course there are other days but Australia Day for example is
regarded as simply a holiday. ANZAC Day is not just a holiday it is a solemn
day. 60,000 went to the Dawn Service in Melbourne, it was 4 degrees and starts
at 6am. Then at 9am there is a parade of veterans that lasts for over 3 hours
and then a memorial service.
This year after a long while i heard criticism of ANZAC Day, of course nothing escapes criticism. But this year I read the idea that to commemorate ANZAC Day is not really patriotic and I read it on a site I link to. I no longer link to them and I want to let you know why. The site and the article in question is Tweed Renegades in this article the Renegades quote an article written by someone else "Makows article begins with the charged question "If central bankers start all the wars, for profit and to degrade humanity to advance the New World Order, are veterans heroes - or mercenaries and dupes?" ". Makow goes on to say " War is the principal means by which Lucifer's disciples, the Cabalist (satanist) central bankers, "change the world." ". In other words yes veterans are mercenaries and dupes. And what do the Renegades have to say about this? To quote them "Brillant!". They are in full agreement with this.
But I am not. In fact I find it factually wrong, not to mention distasteful. Here we have yet another Conspiracy Theory, if only the Bankers weren't evil bastards the world would be at peace. It must give great comfit to some to believe that all they need to do is get rid of central bankers and universal peace erupts. But it's not true and Traditional Conservatives should live in this world not in a fictitious one. So far I have only made a claim so let me go further.
Not a single war has been started by central bankers because we don't need bankers to start wars. Wars are fought for two broad reasons, human nature and conflict. By conflict I mean there is a real reason to fight. Many wars start over what seem small even strange events but when there is no reason to fight the fighting stops. Much more border incidents happen then most people realize. I remember reading one Christmas Day in the late 1990's about a border incident whereby a platoon of Papuan New Guinean soldiers fought a battle against a police unit of the Soloman Islands. The Solomon Islands don't any military, but it didn't stop them shooting at people. The article said the battle lasted hours but no casualties were reported. What makes this matter even stranger is as the name suggests, the Solomon Islands are islands and they have no land border with anyone. Central bankers seem a bad fit here.
But as I was writing that I thought about the internal war fought in Papua New Guinea in the 1980's-90's on the island of Bouganville. Bouganville is important to the world economy for one reason, copper. Copper is a mineral that is not found very often but when it is found there tends to be alot of it. This means that a copper mine is more than just a mine, it is a strategic asset. But the huge copper mine on Bouganville closed in the late 1980's because of a separatist movement, the Bouganvillean Revolutionary Army (BRA). They not only wanted to be independent but they believed that Westerners had taken from them and given nothing back. Turns out that wasn't true, as the islanders had the highest standard of living in the South Pacific, but after the mine closed even life expectancy went down by more than a decade.
Now the question is why would central bankers want this war fought? Afterall how do they benefit if the copper mines close? Actually you can make an argument for them wanting this war. But then you find that while some central banks would benefit, others would suffer. So it seems that even here you have a conflict of interest, if you'll excuse the pun. Now central banks are fighting each other. If they started the war of course. But the BRA didn't need central bankers as they had their own reasons for fighting. As did the Government. In fact there is no need for central bankers here at all.
Now lets return to the Solomon Islands, because in the 2000's the Solomon Islands turned into the Somalia of the South Pacific and became a failed state. The only reason the Solomon Islands didn't have a civil war was because no one was competent enough. So instead the Government collapsed and it became a place where being from the wrong ethnic group could get you killed. Fortunately this has a happy ending because Australia, New Zealand and the other South Pacific countries formed RAMSI (Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands) and both peace and civil Government have been restored. It has only taken a decade and a number of deaths, but it has been achieved.
I know men who have served as Peace Keepers in the Solomon Islands, in East Timor and in Somalia. I know men who have served in Afghanistan, Vietnam. My Grandfather and my Step Father served in WWII. My Great Great Uncle was killed near Amiens in 1918. Were these men mercenaries or dupes?
The Tweed Renegades wrote a second article to clarify the first article. At first it seems to repute much that was written in the first. For example "Fighting for one's country in a just war is an honourable sacrifice, worthy of tremendous respect.". But there it is, "just war", remember central bankers start all the wars and I'm guessing that fighting in a war started by the central bankers is not a "just war". I might be wrong but I really don't think I am. Sadly it simply reinforced what had been written in the first.
"The saddest part is, if Milton had invoked the spirit of the ANZACS to call for the immediate nuking of Syria, the strongest condemnation we'd have received from the right would have been a mild admonition and perhaps a call for the patient exploration of diplomatic channels before the last resort of military action." No people would not have thought that, they would have thought you were a total and utter nutter.
This is not the first time I have been unhappy with Tweed Renegades, but this time they went too far. When I wrote to tell them that I was taking down my link to them, they were courteous and wrote "we've got no issue with differences of opinion as long as the person is still on our wavelength.". But we are not on the same wavelength are we? Calling those who serve their country mercenaries and dupes is not "tremendous respect". I do not link to Communist or Fascist sites because while they may from time to time be right about something I disagree with them, not a little bit or by degrees but absolutely. I also absolutely disagree with a Conservative not being a Patriot, if you are not on your own countries side who's side are you on?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)