Some Thoughts on Race
The Left love to call everyone to the right of them racist and of course Traditional Conservatives have not escaped the charge. This will be a controversial post as to discuss race in any context, except to say it doesn't exist or shouldn't exist, is controversial. However Traditional Conservatives do believe that race exists, that it is a biological reality and that it is in no way a "social construct". Old fashioned racism was when someone hated people of a different race, but the new fashioned definition of racism is to notice that race exists at all.
The charge is also made that we believe in racial supremacy, namely in white supremacy. It is true that you can be a racial supremacist and a Traditional Conservative. You can be a white, black or as I heard someone jokingly say at a party a Vietnamese supremacist. However most Traditional Conservatives are not racial supremacists, because we accept that it is too narrow a view of the complexity of human ability.
We do however agree that you should be loyal to your people, that you should be interested in the past, the present and the future of your own people. That may or may not be defined by race, it may be defined by ethnicity or religion. It is not because they are the smartest or the best looking or for any other reason then that they are your people. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not the smartest or the best looking, it matters that you belong with these people and that they are yours. You have a shared history and hopefully a shared future. Loyalty is a positive virtue and it should be used as a positive virtue.
Sadly to the Multiculturalists, the mass immigration supporters and the diversity agitators, your loyalty is seen as racism. Of course it isn't, but what matters is that they charge you with the "crime" of racism, it isn't important that you be guilty. In this day and age to be disloyal to your people is put forward as a virtue. That you support all people equally and without qualification. It is so appealing because it sounds so lovely and benign, but is it? If your friend is loyal to everyone he meets, just how loyal is he to you? I'd suggest that he isn't loyal to you at all but is more likely to be a fair weather friend, here for the good times but gone when anything bad is happening. That sums up the Multicultarists and their fellow travelers quite well, agree with them or else because they are always loyal to their ideas not to you.
When bad times come they don't leave their ideas they double down on them. Race must be destroyed is at the heart of their belief. They hate all race, starting with the white race and once it is destroyed they will move onto the others. They hate the idea that there really are differences between people, how can a perfect world exist when you can see the differences? No that cannot be allowed!
Traditional Conservatives reject all of that way of thinking, race is real and just as different people are different so are different races. We accept it and move on with our lives, we are not obsessed with race we simply accept that it exists. But at the heart of our beliefs about race is that all people should be loyal to their people. Not to some random person who we are told to be loyal too.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
9 of 20 The Male and Female Pillars
Wednesday, 30 July 2014
Thursday, 24 July 2014
Why Child Care Will Always Cost Too Much
Why Child Care Will Always Cost Too Much
This week the Australian Governments Productivity Commission has released a report in which it recommends paying child care subsidies to Grandparents and to nannies. Now the Government doesn't have to adopt this idea, it is after all just a recommendation. However it does raise the question of why do Grandparents need to be paid for a job they are currently doing for free?
Childcare, professional childcare that is, fits into the philosophy of all 3 strands of Liberalism. Liberalism believes in the autonomous individual, that each individual should be free to create their own life without restrictions and children are a major restriction. Particularly when it comes to getting or keeping a job. So Right or Economic Liberalism as supported by the Liberal Party, Left or Social Liberalism as supported by Labor and the Greens and Feminism all come together on this issue and agree that childcare is needed and by needed what they mean is paid for by the taxpayer.
If women are to be autonomous individuals then they need to be free of children or else they cannot work. All 3 strands of Liberalism agree on this point but for different reasons. Right or Economic Liberalism believes in the Market, that economic forces are the centre of life and if someone is not part of the market how can they be free? No that won't do, everyone needs to be a part of the market, including mothers. Left or Social Liberalism believes in making people free through social forces and they use the Government to shape those social forces. Mothers must work or they are cut off from these social forces, they must be autonomous individuals. Then you have Feminism who believe that women should be free from male domination, that includes being free from husbands. A women who is an autonomous individual has her own money, her own job, even if married.
But childcare has a built in paradox, the more money that is made available the more expensive it becomes. Even when the aim of that money is to provide subsidies to specifically make childcare more affordable. How can that be?
Well lets look at what costs are involved in running a childcare operation
1) A specially designed space that is available for no other purpose
2) Wages and training
3) Activities to entertain, educate or otherwise keep the childrens attention
Lets say a centre has 20 places, it needs a ratio of staff to children, we will say the ratio is 1 to 5, 1 staff member for every 5 children. That gives a staff of 4, but you also need a supervisor to run the centre, do the paperwork, be an extra pair of hands (and eyes) and to ultimately be responsible for everything. The more children that are enrolled the more money the centre makes, even Government run centres need to make money now days. But the more children, the more staff are needed. The more staff you have the more experienced the staff needs to be. Not all of the staff of course, but you need experienced staff to look after not just the children but also the less experienced staff. To provide training, mentoring and to make sure the children are not put in harms way. But each step costs money. New staff cost money and so does the experienced staff.
When few mothers work then childcare is expensive as it is a great risk to open a childcare centre, unless it is Government run and heavily subsided. As more mothers start to work the cost goes up, childcare is a rare commodity and it has just become rarer. Over time as more mothers work then the cost goes down, but it has entered a cycle of boom and bust. Parents want those who look after their children to be trained and that costs money, both to provide the training and in increased wages to encourage the training. Each step to increasing the numbers of children in childcare and to make the staff more professional cost money. And because of the low ratio of staff to children means that there is no economy of scale. A costly industry just keeps getting more expensive.
Even if every mother worked and her children were in childcare the costs would not go down by much. The reason is that the childcare industry is not designed to be cost effective, it is designed to separate mothers from their children. The cost is not important to anyone but parents. The industry doesn't believe it can cut costs in a way that would be acceptable and I think they are correct to believe that. Government likes the control it has over children in childcare and lets be honest Government is not renowned for keeping costs down. And every political party wants mothers to work, the cost in money or to families is unimportant, what matters is their ideology.
As for paying Grandparents to do a job they are already doing for free, once they accept the money then the Government will be calling the tune. Will a Grandparent be allowed to spank a child? Will they be able to feed them what foods they think is right or only the foods the Government thinks is right? Will Grandparents be required to undergo training to look after their own grandchildren? If you refuse the Governments money does that mean you are regarded as more likely to be abusive and require more Government supervision?This is a dangerous idea and people should remember that rarely do these things happen all at once, normally they start with something reasonable and progressively move to something unreasonable.
The real problem with childcare is that it separates mothers and children. And the ultimate reason it will always cost too much, is that it seeks to improve on a very cost efficient and practical solution that we already know works. A mother looking after her own children while being supported by her husband.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Essence of Liberalism
This week the Australian Governments Productivity Commission has released a report in which it recommends paying child care subsidies to Grandparents and to nannies. Now the Government doesn't have to adopt this idea, it is after all just a recommendation. However it does raise the question of why do Grandparents need to be paid for a job they are currently doing for free?
Childcare, professional childcare that is, fits into the philosophy of all 3 strands of Liberalism. Liberalism believes in the autonomous individual, that each individual should be free to create their own life without restrictions and children are a major restriction. Particularly when it comes to getting or keeping a job. So Right or Economic Liberalism as supported by the Liberal Party, Left or Social Liberalism as supported by Labor and the Greens and Feminism all come together on this issue and agree that childcare is needed and by needed what they mean is paid for by the taxpayer.
If women are to be autonomous individuals then they need to be free of children or else they cannot work. All 3 strands of Liberalism agree on this point but for different reasons. Right or Economic Liberalism believes in the Market, that economic forces are the centre of life and if someone is not part of the market how can they be free? No that won't do, everyone needs to be a part of the market, including mothers. Left or Social Liberalism believes in making people free through social forces and they use the Government to shape those social forces. Mothers must work or they are cut off from these social forces, they must be autonomous individuals. Then you have Feminism who believe that women should be free from male domination, that includes being free from husbands. A women who is an autonomous individual has her own money, her own job, even if married.
But childcare has a built in paradox, the more money that is made available the more expensive it becomes. Even when the aim of that money is to provide subsidies to specifically make childcare more affordable. How can that be?
Well lets look at what costs are involved in running a childcare operation
1) A specially designed space that is available for no other purpose
2) Wages and training
3) Activities to entertain, educate or otherwise keep the childrens attention
Lets say a centre has 20 places, it needs a ratio of staff to children, we will say the ratio is 1 to 5, 1 staff member for every 5 children. That gives a staff of 4, but you also need a supervisor to run the centre, do the paperwork, be an extra pair of hands (and eyes) and to ultimately be responsible for everything. The more children that are enrolled the more money the centre makes, even Government run centres need to make money now days. But the more children, the more staff are needed. The more staff you have the more experienced the staff needs to be. Not all of the staff of course, but you need experienced staff to look after not just the children but also the less experienced staff. To provide training, mentoring and to make sure the children are not put in harms way. But each step costs money. New staff cost money and so does the experienced staff.
When few mothers work then childcare is expensive as it is a great risk to open a childcare centre, unless it is Government run and heavily subsided. As more mothers start to work the cost goes up, childcare is a rare commodity and it has just become rarer. Over time as more mothers work then the cost goes down, but it has entered a cycle of boom and bust. Parents want those who look after their children to be trained and that costs money, both to provide the training and in increased wages to encourage the training. Each step to increasing the numbers of children in childcare and to make the staff more professional cost money. And because of the low ratio of staff to children means that there is no economy of scale. A costly industry just keeps getting more expensive.
Even if every mother worked and her children were in childcare the costs would not go down by much. The reason is that the childcare industry is not designed to be cost effective, it is designed to separate mothers from their children. The cost is not important to anyone but parents. The industry doesn't believe it can cut costs in a way that would be acceptable and I think they are correct to believe that. Government likes the control it has over children in childcare and lets be honest Government is not renowned for keeping costs down. And every political party wants mothers to work, the cost in money or to families is unimportant, what matters is their ideology.
As for paying Grandparents to do a job they are already doing for free, once they accept the money then the Government will be calling the tune. Will a Grandparent be allowed to spank a child? Will they be able to feed them what foods they think is right or only the foods the Government thinks is right? Will Grandparents be required to undergo training to look after their own grandchildren? If you refuse the Governments money does that mean you are regarded as more likely to be abusive and require more Government supervision?This is a dangerous idea and people should remember that rarely do these things happen all at once, normally they start with something reasonable and progressively move to something unreasonable.
The real problem with childcare is that it separates mothers and children. And the ultimate reason it will always cost too much, is that it seeks to improve on a very cost efficient and practical solution that we already know works. A mother looking after her own children while being supported by her husband.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Essence of Liberalism
Monday, 21 July 2014
Australian Suicide Bomber?
Australian Suicide Bomber?
Last Friday I was watching the news reports on MH17, the Malaysian Airlines plane shot down over the Ukraine killing all 298 passengers and crew. It is of course a big story here, particularly as 28 Australians were killed, with another 9 resident in Australia and 6 visitors on their way to Melbourne for an international AIDS conference. But it was a big news day and as if this tragic event wasn't enough I then saw the Israeli retaliation in Gaza with Hamas using their own people as human shields and our media falling for it, yet again. Then a third news item came on about a suicide bombing in a marketplace in Northern Iraq that killed 4. But the interesting thing about this was that the suicide bomber was Australian, or should that be "Australian"?
It turns out he was the second "Australian" suicide bomber, some reports say he was the third. Now I ask you what kind of Australian name is Abu Bakr al-Australi? We all know it's not an Australian name, it's an Arabic name, a fake Arabic name at that. Two of the suicide bombers have used this alias before carrying out their evil actions. The media are happy to call them Australian. But now I ask you a second question, what makes an Australian think of going on jihad and then deciding to become a suicide bomber? The answer is Islam and particularly it's political offshoot Islamism. What does Islam have to do with Australia? Until 1967, the answer was very little.
In the late 1800's the first Muslims came to Australia as camel drivers, they lived very tough lives running caravans out into the centre of Australia which is mostly desert. They were always called Afghans, but most would have come from whats now Pakistan and nearly all were men, about 1000. When they married it was mostly to white Australian women who converted to Islam and in time they grow to a few thousand spread around Australia. The only real trouble they caused was in 1914 when we went to war against the Ottoman Empire, two shot up a trainload of picnickers killing one man. But apart from that I haven't heard of any other serious problems. And over time their numbers few, all that changed in 1967.
In 1967 the Australian Government decided to extend our immigration program to Turkey and that began the influx of Muslims into Australia. In the 1970's immigration was extended to every country in the world. But what really started increasing the numbers was the civil war in Lebanon. From here the numbers grew slowly until the 1990's when large numbers of Muslims started to enter Australia. And how have we been repaid?
Just like in many other Western countries, Islamist terrorist cells have been arrested for plotting mass murder upon us. Others are under monitoring from our Intelligence service and our military, police and emergency services train for what they will do if one of these plots isn't discovered in time. Now we keep hearing about how worried the Politicians and our Intelligence chiefs are worried that jihadists who have trained and fought in Syria and/or Iraq should return and want to continue the fight. We have been luckier than some in that we have not had a successful terrorist attacks within Australia, but unluckier than others as 88 Australians were killed in a terrorist attack in Bali and others have been killed in other places.
Now some argue that that is only a tiny minority and they are correct, they argue that most Muslims are just normal people seeking to get on with their life and again they are correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the Australian Government imported a problem that we didn't have and I might add didn't need. Again you might argue that the Government cannot predict the future, to which I wholeheartedly agree. That leads us to two points, firstly thats an argument for a more cautious approach and secondly, while the Government may not be able to predict the future it certainly can understand the past and to a lesser degree the present.
But Islamic immigration into Australia has not stopped, nor has it decreased, no it continues unabated, it seems with no end in sight. At the same time we know that the war against Islamism has not ended and that means we must constantly watch over our shoulders to make sure we are safe. Our own Government, Labor and Liberal have made us less safe, less secure and have destroyed our peace of mind. And for what?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Meanings of Word "Politics"
Last Friday I was watching the news reports on MH17, the Malaysian Airlines plane shot down over the Ukraine killing all 298 passengers and crew. It is of course a big story here, particularly as 28 Australians were killed, with another 9 resident in Australia and 6 visitors on their way to Melbourne for an international AIDS conference. But it was a big news day and as if this tragic event wasn't enough I then saw the Israeli retaliation in Gaza with Hamas using their own people as human shields and our media falling for it, yet again. Then a third news item came on about a suicide bombing in a marketplace in Northern Iraq that killed 4. But the interesting thing about this was that the suicide bomber was Australian, or should that be "Australian"?
It turns out he was the second "Australian" suicide bomber, some reports say he was the third. Now I ask you what kind of Australian name is Abu Bakr al-Australi? We all know it's not an Australian name, it's an Arabic name, a fake Arabic name at that. Two of the suicide bombers have used this alias before carrying out their evil actions. The media are happy to call them Australian. But now I ask you a second question, what makes an Australian think of going on jihad and then deciding to become a suicide bomber? The answer is Islam and particularly it's political offshoot Islamism. What does Islam have to do with Australia? Until 1967, the answer was very little.
In the late 1800's the first Muslims came to Australia as camel drivers, they lived very tough lives running caravans out into the centre of Australia which is mostly desert. They were always called Afghans, but most would have come from whats now Pakistan and nearly all were men, about 1000. When they married it was mostly to white Australian women who converted to Islam and in time they grow to a few thousand spread around Australia. The only real trouble they caused was in 1914 when we went to war against the Ottoman Empire, two shot up a trainload of picnickers killing one man. But apart from that I haven't heard of any other serious problems. And over time their numbers few, all that changed in 1967.
In 1967 the Australian Government decided to extend our immigration program to Turkey and that began the influx of Muslims into Australia. In the 1970's immigration was extended to every country in the world. But what really started increasing the numbers was the civil war in Lebanon. From here the numbers grew slowly until the 1990's when large numbers of Muslims started to enter Australia. And how have we been repaid?
Just like in many other Western countries, Islamist terrorist cells have been arrested for plotting mass murder upon us. Others are under monitoring from our Intelligence service and our military, police and emergency services train for what they will do if one of these plots isn't discovered in time. Now we keep hearing about how worried the Politicians and our Intelligence chiefs are worried that jihadists who have trained and fought in Syria and/or Iraq should return and want to continue the fight. We have been luckier than some in that we have not had a successful terrorist attacks within Australia, but unluckier than others as 88 Australians were killed in a terrorist attack in Bali and others have been killed in other places.
Now some argue that that is only a tiny minority and they are correct, they argue that most Muslims are just normal people seeking to get on with their life and again they are correct. But that doesn't change the fact that the Australian Government imported a problem that we didn't have and I might add didn't need. Again you might argue that the Government cannot predict the future, to which I wholeheartedly agree. That leads us to two points, firstly thats an argument for a more cautious approach and secondly, while the Government may not be able to predict the future it certainly can understand the past and to a lesser degree the present.
But Islamic immigration into Australia has not stopped, nor has it decreased, no it continues unabated, it seems with no end in sight. At the same time we know that the war against Islamism has not ended and that means we must constantly watch over our shoulders to make sure we are safe. Our own Government, Labor and Liberal have made us less safe, less secure and have destroyed our peace of mind. And for what?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Meanings of Word "Politics"
Friday, 18 July 2014
Conservative Economics
Conservative Economics
There are certain things that Conservatives want from economics. Of course remembering that there are different types of economics, there is the actual economy, economic theories as well as economic "laws", such as the law of supply and demand. I'm not talking about such things here, what I am talking about is the demands that Conservatism should make of economics.
Ironically the first thing is something that many Leftists would also support, that the economy exists to support us, people, and that we do not exist to support the economy. Where we part company is that we also believe that sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good of the economy. But not simply for profit or efficiency. Neither profit or efficiency are dirty words, but the economy should act as as a mutual aid society. Providing as many people as possible with an economic future. When sacrifices need to be made are when the economy changes and we need to change with it.
But the two biggest demands that Conservatives make of the economy is one) that it must produce wealth and two) that it must produce jobs. An economy that only creates wealth is not enough, nor is an economy that only creates jobs good enough. Neither of these things will in the long run produce a Conservative society as people are not self supporting. Only when people are free to look after their own economic interests can people be free of business and Government. Both business and Government have a rightful place in the economy, but if something has a rightful place that also means that it has a wrongful place. The role of both has been much larger than they should be.
Further, while a world economy exists it is not the health of the world economy that concerns us, we are concerned with the national economy, with the creation of wealth within one nation and with the creation of jobs within one country. A man should be loyal to his people and to his nation, not to such abstract things as the world or even the economy, let alone such a thing as the world economy. That of course does not mean we wish ill upon others, we wish them luck with their economic endeavours, but not at our expense. That is why immigration should end when long term unemployment exists. Immigration or unemployment but not both.
We also believe that Employers and Employees are on the same side. It is one of the great misfortunes of the current economic order that the two are so often set against each other. Management against the Union and vice versa is a conflict we have heard before. But if a company goes out of business, how does that help it's workers? Wouldn't it be better if in good times all employees got a bonus and in bad times they could work less hours or take a pay cut to keep the company in business. These things should be negotiated between Management and the workers or their Union if the workers want. But it should be for a set period only, say 6 months and then either the company is closed or a new negotiation takes place. Workers need to be protected from unscrupulous managers, but at the same time they need to be able to protect themselves and sometimes that means making sacrifices.
In regards to bonuses non should be paid when a company has not returned a profit.
In the current economy debt is seen as nothing to really worry about. But Conservatives do not see debt in quite the same light. Debt needs to be paid, both for moral and economic reasons. It is immoral to take money with no intent or ability to pay it back and that includes by setting up debt that will need to be paid for by future generations. War or other threats to national existence are good reasons to go into debt, large debt, even multi-generational debt, but normal economic life should not require that. In fact it is a direct attack upon normal economic life as it stops normal economic activity by making life more expensive. Debt, private, business and Government should be undertaken for prudent reasons. In most cases debt should either be to cover a temporary shortfall or to build or create something that will contribute to future economic success. In other words it may be prudent to go into debt to build a road or a bridge but it would not be prudent, ever, to go into debt to fund tax cuts or institute a new welfare payment. A road or bridge should contribute to future economic success, but neither a tax cut or a new welfare would contribute, even though they may be good ideas. But if they cannot be funded out of normal expenses then they should not be undertaken.
We also believe that smaller is better, large corporations have too much influence and they take wealth from communities and give them to others. Franchises are one way of opening up corporations and keeping wealth in local communities. While we do not have anything against the rich or the poor, society is best served by giving more opportunity to as many as possible. So a town full of small businesses owned by local people is better than a small town full of corporate brands. The first town will be richer as it provides more opportunity both for workers as they are supporting their own community and for upward advancement as it is possible to own your own business. Something that in the second town has been destroyed as how can a local business compete against a corporation, there are ways but it is quite difficult, more difficult than it should be.
Another thing that has been under attack is quality control. I look at many of the items I buy and they are of very poor quality. Built simply to make a profit, there being no pride in the work or in the quality of the product. This drive to the bottom stops good quality goods from being produced and then we are left with a choice between bad and worse. Quality and pride are both important, why are we allowing these things to vanish?
Conservatives should believe and support the balanced society, the idea that we each have a rightful place and that we are important. Not because we are vain but because of the inherent value that we have because we exist. A Conservative economy must seek to provide as many people as possible with the ability to start and raise a family. To build a decent life and to support the national interest. To be mutually supporting and not exploitative. Some may think these things are too hard, but they are our demands.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
7-of-20 Constitutional Restrictions
There are certain things that Conservatives want from economics. Of course remembering that there are different types of economics, there is the actual economy, economic theories as well as economic "laws", such as the law of supply and demand. I'm not talking about such things here, what I am talking about is the demands that Conservatism should make of economics.
Ironically the first thing is something that many Leftists would also support, that the economy exists to support us, people, and that we do not exist to support the economy. Where we part company is that we also believe that sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good of the economy. But not simply for profit or efficiency. Neither profit or efficiency are dirty words, but the economy should act as as a mutual aid society. Providing as many people as possible with an economic future. When sacrifices need to be made are when the economy changes and we need to change with it.
But the two biggest demands that Conservatives make of the economy is one) that it must produce wealth and two) that it must produce jobs. An economy that only creates wealth is not enough, nor is an economy that only creates jobs good enough. Neither of these things will in the long run produce a Conservative society as people are not self supporting. Only when people are free to look after their own economic interests can people be free of business and Government. Both business and Government have a rightful place in the economy, but if something has a rightful place that also means that it has a wrongful place. The role of both has been much larger than they should be.
Further, while a world economy exists it is not the health of the world economy that concerns us, we are concerned with the national economy, with the creation of wealth within one nation and with the creation of jobs within one country. A man should be loyal to his people and to his nation, not to such abstract things as the world or even the economy, let alone such a thing as the world economy. That of course does not mean we wish ill upon others, we wish them luck with their economic endeavours, but not at our expense. That is why immigration should end when long term unemployment exists. Immigration or unemployment but not both.
We also believe that Employers and Employees are on the same side. It is one of the great misfortunes of the current economic order that the two are so often set against each other. Management against the Union and vice versa is a conflict we have heard before. But if a company goes out of business, how does that help it's workers? Wouldn't it be better if in good times all employees got a bonus and in bad times they could work less hours or take a pay cut to keep the company in business. These things should be negotiated between Management and the workers or their Union if the workers want. But it should be for a set period only, say 6 months and then either the company is closed or a new negotiation takes place. Workers need to be protected from unscrupulous managers, but at the same time they need to be able to protect themselves and sometimes that means making sacrifices.
In regards to bonuses non should be paid when a company has not returned a profit.
In the current economy debt is seen as nothing to really worry about. But Conservatives do not see debt in quite the same light. Debt needs to be paid, both for moral and economic reasons. It is immoral to take money with no intent or ability to pay it back and that includes by setting up debt that will need to be paid for by future generations. War or other threats to national existence are good reasons to go into debt, large debt, even multi-generational debt, but normal economic life should not require that. In fact it is a direct attack upon normal economic life as it stops normal economic activity by making life more expensive. Debt, private, business and Government should be undertaken for prudent reasons. In most cases debt should either be to cover a temporary shortfall or to build or create something that will contribute to future economic success. In other words it may be prudent to go into debt to build a road or a bridge but it would not be prudent, ever, to go into debt to fund tax cuts or institute a new welfare payment. A road or bridge should contribute to future economic success, but neither a tax cut or a new welfare would contribute, even though they may be good ideas. But if they cannot be funded out of normal expenses then they should not be undertaken.
We also believe that smaller is better, large corporations have too much influence and they take wealth from communities and give them to others. Franchises are one way of opening up corporations and keeping wealth in local communities. While we do not have anything against the rich or the poor, society is best served by giving more opportunity to as many as possible. So a town full of small businesses owned by local people is better than a small town full of corporate brands. The first town will be richer as it provides more opportunity both for workers as they are supporting their own community and for upward advancement as it is possible to own your own business. Something that in the second town has been destroyed as how can a local business compete against a corporation, there are ways but it is quite difficult, more difficult than it should be.
Another thing that has been under attack is quality control. I look at many of the items I buy and they are of very poor quality. Built simply to make a profit, there being no pride in the work or in the quality of the product. This drive to the bottom stops good quality goods from being produced and then we are left with a choice between bad and worse. Quality and pride are both important, why are we allowing these things to vanish?
Conservatives should believe and support the balanced society, the idea that we each have a rightful place and that we are important. Not because we are vain but because of the inherent value that we have because we exist. A Conservative economy must seek to provide as many people as possible with the ability to start and raise a family. To build a decent life and to support the national interest. To be mutually supporting and not exploitative. Some may think these things are too hard, but they are our demands.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
7-of-20 Constitutional Restrictions
Monday, 14 July 2014
Liberal Economics, the Beginnings
Liberal Economics, the Beginnings
It has been said to me that there is no such thing as Liberal economics, or Conservative economics, only economics. Next thing I'll be told there is no such thing as Marxist economics!
But maybe the problem is that there are different kinds of economics. And every political theory has attached to it an economic theory. These are quite distinct from actual economics, either the real economics of the real world or theories on how economies operate or even economic "laws" such as the law of supply and demand. In fact when it comes to political theories I would suggest that they didn't come first but that the economic rational came first and that the political theory came next....or at least simultaneously and separately. Lets have a look at Liberalism.
Liberalism has a long political past, but economic Liberalism came out of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. It arose in France, Britain and the United States and it came about because of the economic intervention of Governments that were required to fight these wars. Not because of the ideals of either the American or French Revolutions. But because of the efforts of 20 years of naval blockades and the effects that had on national economies.
Naval blockades are nothing new they are as old as naval warfare, but our story begins in the 1700's as Britain became the dominate naval power. One of the strategies it used against it's enemies was to blockade them. If done right it could ruin a nations trade and drive it towards bankruptcy. In 1759 Britains Royal Navy worked out a system that could provide a constant blockade of a port. What the United States Navy calls a Fleet Train, whereby warships remain at sea and ready for action, but it's crew and all supplies are brought to it by supply ships. Before that a warship had to return to port regularly to get more supplies or risk sickness onboard ship. Now, even the crew could be replaced and rested, while the warship remained in place with the new crew blockading the port. What this meant was that all trade could be controlled by that nations ships who were free to trade, instead of their enemies ships who were trapped in port.
During the period of 1792-1815, Britain was blockading European ports, sometimes only French ports, at others nearly the whole of Europe. Which meant that Europe was divided into two trading systems, a world wide maritime trade controlled by Britain and a European land based system controlled by France. These different systems had some economic advantages, the Governments provided support to industries they considered important to the war effort and merchants could and did reap huge profits from these two systems because competition was less. But they also had some big disadvantages and the merchants saw this only too clearly. The risks were massive, there was a war going on after all, often it was hard to get goods while with other goods you couldn't get rid of them there was so much of it. And on top of this were the large insurance rates and taxes that ate into profits. When the wars finally ended in 1815 merchants were eager to find a new way of doing things and much of the talk of the times was about liberty.
In many ways the policies employed during the wars were simply an extension of the Mercantilism system that existed before the wars, that sort to create trading zones that were exclusive to one European power. Merchants now wanted a much freer hand, they didn't always get it but they wanted much less control. Because they had had a taste of forbidden fruit. Before the wars Spanish colonies were off limits to any other countries trade, but as Spain had been so beaten about during the wars it couldn't enforce it's own laws and Britain got a taste for South American trade. They even financed their wars of independence against Spain, all so that they could get the trade that had once been exclusively Spanish. All so the American Revolution had encouraged the idea of free trade, indirectly. Before the war North America was dominated by British trade. After Britain lost the war it didn't want to lose the trade as well. Fortunately the newly independent Americans were in no way capable of replacing the British, so Britain remained the dominate economic power in North America. In the 1820's nearly all of the Americas, north, south and in between were open to "Free Trade". A cornerstone of Liberal economics.
It came about bit by bit, there was no grand design or plan but it fit the philosophy within Liberal thought very easily. Free people should have free trade, they should have the ability, no the right to trade with whomever they wanted.
Free Trade
No Tariffs
Low Tax
Free Association, no membership of Guilds or Trade Unions
Free Movement of Labour
Growth is good
Progress is good
All of these are cornerstones of Liberal economics, they are not simply economics but they are part of a school of economic thought and they have been part of the world economy for two centuries now. But they have not gone unchallenged, either in the real world or in theory. Not everyone who has challenged Liberal economics has been up to the task or come up with the right answer. But Liberal economics has also provided many wrong turns and false leads. It certainly isn't 100% wrong, but it certainly isn't 100% right either.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Levels of Liberal Consciousness
It has been said to me that there is no such thing as Liberal economics, or Conservative economics, only economics. Next thing I'll be told there is no such thing as Marxist economics!
But maybe the problem is that there are different kinds of economics. And every political theory has attached to it an economic theory. These are quite distinct from actual economics, either the real economics of the real world or theories on how economies operate or even economic "laws" such as the law of supply and demand. In fact when it comes to political theories I would suggest that they didn't come first but that the economic rational came first and that the political theory came next....or at least simultaneously and separately. Lets have a look at Liberalism.
Liberalism has a long political past, but economic Liberalism came out of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. It arose in France, Britain and the United States and it came about because of the economic intervention of Governments that were required to fight these wars. Not because of the ideals of either the American or French Revolutions. But because of the efforts of 20 years of naval blockades and the effects that had on national economies.
Naval blockades are nothing new they are as old as naval warfare, but our story begins in the 1700's as Britain became the dominate naval power. One of the strategies it used against it's enemies was to blockade them. If done right it could ruin a nations trade and drive it towards bankruptcy. In 1759 Britains Royal Navy worked out a system that could provide a constant blockade of a port. What the United States Navy calls a Fleet Train, whereby warships remain at sea and ready for action, but it's crew and all supplies are brought to it by supply ships. Before that a warship had to return to port regularly to get more supplies or risk sickness onboard ship. Now, even the crew could be replaced and rested, while the warship remained in place with the new crew blockading the port. What this meant was that all trade could be controlled by that nations ships who were free to trade, instead of their enemies ships who were trapped in port.
During the period of 1792-1815, Britain was blockading European ports, sometimes only French ports, at others nearly the whole of Europe. Which meant that Europe was divided into two trading systems, a world wide maritime trade controlled by Britain and a European land based system controlled by France. These different systems had some economic advantages, the Governments provided support to industries they considered important to the war effort and merchants could and did reap huge profits from these two systems because competition was less. But they also had some big disadvantages and the merchants saw this only too clearly. The risks were massive, there was a war going on after all, often it was hard to get goods while with other goods you couldn't get rid of them there was so much of it. And on top of this were the large insurance rates and taxes that ate into profits. When the wars finally ended in 1815 merchants were eager to find a new way of doing things and much of the talk of the times was about liberty.
In many ways the policies employed during the wars were simply an extension of the Mercantilism system that existed before the wars, that sort to create trading zones that were exclusive to one European power. Merchants now wanted a much freer hand, they didn't always get it but they wanted much less control. Because they had had a taste of forbidden fruit. Before the wars Spanish colonies were off limits to any other countries trade, but as Spain had been so beaten about during the wars it couldn't enforce it's own laws and Britain got a taste for South American trade. They even financed their wars of independence against Spain, all so that they could get the trade that had once been exclusively Spanish. All so the American Revolution had encouraged the idea of free trade, indirectly. Before the war North America was dominated by British trade. After Britain lost the war it didn't want to lose the trade as well. Fortunately the newly independent Americans were in no way capable of replacing the British, so Britain remained the dominate economic power in North America. In the 1820's nearly all of the Americas, north, south and in between were open to "Free Trade". A cornerstone of Liberal economics.
It came about bit by bit, there was no grand design or plan but it fit the philosophy within Liberal thought very easily. Free people should have free trade, they should have the ability, no the right to trade with whomever they wanted.
Free Trade
No Tariffs
Low Tax
Free Association, no membership of Guilds or Trade Unions
Free Movement of Labour
Growth is good
Progress is good
All of these are cornerstones of Liberal economics, they are not simply economics but they are part of a school of economic thought and they have been part of the world economy for two centuries now. But they have not gone unchallenged, either in the real world or in theory. Not everyone who has challenged Liberal economics has been up to the task or come up with the right answer. But Liberal economics has also provided many wrong turns and false leads. It certainly isn't 100% wrong, but it certainly isn't 100% right either.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Three Levels of Liberal Consciousness
Friday, 11 July 2014
The Sixteenth Month
The Sixteenth Month
Yesterday I came online and saw that I had had exactly 21,000 pageviews since I started here in March 2013, I was very excited. It's nice to see things advancing, even if slowly. This will be my 172nd post and it seems amazing to me that I've found that amount of topics to write on and I still have much more to say. The site continues on it's roller coaster ride, with my best day this month being the 6th of July when I had 83 visitors, the exact same high as last month. My worst day was the 6th of July when I had only 16 visitors, a very low number, it's unusual to get as low the the teens. Fortunately it was the only day in the teens.
The article Free Trade versus Protectionism is the most read on the site and currently sits at 978 views, it will soon reach the 1000 mark, which is also exciting. While I wrote the article and quite by accident picked a very searchable title, it is the questions I was able to ask Mr. Neal over at Throne Altar Liberty for the Protectionist's and Mr. Panther over at Percy's Pensieve for the Free Traders that makes it most useful. The second most viewed article is Feminism, why we are not Feminists, which has been viewed 745 times, still quite good but as you can see a good ways behind the most popular article.
This month I added a new website and I forgot to mention that I added one in June as well.
Adventures in Keeping House
& last month
Another Politically Incorrect Blog
11th June -11th July 2014
May-June
The United States is heading back in the right direction as is the Ukraine. Canada is also slightly up.
Yesterday I came online and saw that I had had exactly 21,000 pageviews since I started here in March 2013, I was very excited. It's nice to see things advancing, even if slowly. This will be my 172nd post and it seems amazing to me that I've found that amount of topics to write on and I still have much more to say. The site continues on it's roller coaster ride, with my best day this month being the 6th of July when I had 83 visitors, the exact same high as last month. My worst day was the 6th of July when I had only 16 visitors, a very low number, it's unusual to get as low the the teens. Fortunately it was the only day in the teens.
The article Free Trade versus Protectionism is the most read on the site and currently sits at 978 views, it will soon reach the 1000 mark, which is also exciting. While I wrote the article and quite by accident picked a very searchable title, it is the questions I was able to ask Mr. Neal over at Throne Altar Liberty for the Protectionist's and Mr. Panther over at Percy's Pensieve for the Free Traders that makes it most useful. The second most viewed article is Feminism, why we are not Feminists, which has been viewed 745 times, still quite good but as you can see a good ways behind the most popular article.
This month I added a new website and I forgot to mention that I added one in June as well.
Adventures in Keeping House
& last month
Another Politically Incorrect Blog
11th June -11th July 2014
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
576
|
Australia
|
190
|
United Kingdom
|
63
|
Ukraine
|
62
|
Netherlands
|
47
|
Canada
|
32
|
France
|
32
|
Indonesia
|
24
|
India
|
18
|
Russia
|
18
|
May-June
| Entry | Pageviews |
|---|---|
United States
|
534
|
Australia
|
262
|
United Kingdom
|
82
|
Ukraine
|
55
|
France
|
48
|
China
|
43
|
Canada
|
29
|
Germany
|
25
|
Japan
|
23
|
Russia
|
19
|
The United States is heading back in the right direction as is the Ukraine. Canada is also slightly up.
The Netherlands, Indonesia and India are back in the Top 10.
Russia is basically the same.
Sadly Australia has dropped quite a bit. The United Kingdom & France are also down.
China, Germany and Japan have all left the Top 10.
I have also been visited by people in the following countries: Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Malta, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Moldova, Iraq, Qatar, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Cambodia, Singapore, Philippines, Nigeria, Madagascar, South Africa, New Zealand, Fiji, Mexico, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Guyana, Colombia.
I hope to see you again, soon.
Mark Moncrieff
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Critiquing a Critic - A Follow Up to An Immigration Proposal
Critiquing a Critic - A Follow Up to An Immigration Proposal
Earlier this week I wrote An Immigration Proposal where I proposed a way to end mass immigration to Australia within 7 years. One of my regular readers and commentators Mr. Panther wrote a reply over at his blog Percy's Pensieve, with the actual reply being here The Great Immigration biff-up. Now I don't have a problem with a critique, but just as he found things to criticize in my article, I found things in his to criticize.
The first, roughly 1/3rd of Mr. Panthers article concerns my article, the rest consists of a Libertarian way to restrict immigration. I'm not a fan of Libertarianism as I believe they are simply Anarchists who like business. So I will not spend much time on this part of the article, but try to restrict myself to the first 1/3rd of the article. I will quote a sentence and provide my critique of it.
Let me start with this sentence "There is a tension on the Right between those who are interested in tradition, community, order and social preservation, and those who are interested in liberty and prosperity". It implies that Traditionalists are not interested in Liberty or Prosperity! Something I find very strange, what we do not believe in is unlimited liberty or unlimited prosperity. It is a Liberal conceit to believe that only they believe in such things and to have any doubt on the unlimited ability of either is to not really believe in them.
"Mark seems to admit the economic necessity of immigration, but seemingly only insofar as immigration props up a "pyramid scheme"." I need to break this sentence in half, first off I do not admit the economic necessity of immigration, what I said was "I unfortunately see that that could have serious consequences for the economy"(of ending immigration suddenly), which means lets engage in economic change in a responsible manner. As I am seeking to move from an economy where many rely on immigration for their livelihood to one where hardly anyone relies on immigration for their livelihood, that change should not be sudden. Quite a different thing. Secondly different industries rely on immigration to different degrees, building for example is heavily dependent upon immigration and to allow change people need time to adjust.
"a net immigration intake of 0 would be not only desirable, but feasible and without any negative consequences." Here Mr. Panther is stating my opinion accurately, except for one minor point. I do believe we could have a 0 immigration intake, the only reason I put it at 1/1000 or 23,000 is to cover those personal relationships, services to Australia or truly exceptional candidates such as world leading experts that may need entry to Australia. It has nearly no economic consideration at all. But I do not believe this has no negative consequences, all decisions have consequences. But as I also wrote "Immigration should only exist for one reason and that is to benefit the nation, if it doesn't do that then it should end.". In the current economic climate, immigration should end.
Now we get to the crux of the Liberal economic argument and it is here that I have the most to object to. Even when most countries had protectionist policies world trade continued, this idea that only Liberal economics allows trade is rarely stated but most heavily implied and it is wrong.
"If one country, our country, closed it's borders or set an arbitrary (low) limit on immigration, we would not be allowing supply to meet demand. The economy would stagnate as business would cease to be able to grow for lack of labour supply." Now heres one I have alot of problems with. Mr. Panther is a smart man, I would go so far as to say very smart. How can he believe that Australia has a labour shortage? Or even that we have a potential labour shortage? The reality is we have 700,000 unemployed and we have a further 800,000 adults in post secondary school education. That means that in the next 5 years the economy must create at least 1,500,000 jobs, half of them right away! We do not have a labour shortage, this should be quite clear.
These ideas are why the Working class hate the Liberal Party and in America the Republican Party and in Britain the Conservative Party. Because they treat the Working class with utter contempt, they export our jobs to the third world and at the same time bring in foreigners to compete with us for work. They create unemployment and poverty and tell everyone, not least themselves that they are such brilliant economic managers. If that were true unemployment would have been eliminated but it has not been eliminated and in fact many think they want mass unemployment. It would certainly fit with their continuous effort to destroy the Working class, something they deny but which I see every day all around me.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Stages of Liberal Reform
Earlier this week I wrote An Immigration Proposal where I proposed a way to end mass immigration to Australia within 7 years. One of my regular readers and commentators Mr. Panther wrote a reply over at his blog Percy's Pensieve, with the actual reply being here The Great Immigration biff-up. Now I don't have a problem with a critique, but just as he found things to criticize in my article, I found things in his to criticize.
The first, roughly 1/3rd of Mr. Panthers article concerns my article, the rest consists of a Libertarian way to restrict immigration. I'm not a fan of Libertarianism as I believe they are simply Anarchists who like business. So I will not spend much time on this part of the article, but try to restrict myself to the first 1/3rd of the article. I will quote a sentence and provide my critique of it.
Let me start with this sentence "There is a tension on the Right between those who are interested in tradition, community, order and social preservation, and those who are interested in liberty and prosperity". It implies that Traditionalists are not interested in Liberty or Prosperity! Something I find very strange, what we do not believe in is unlimited liberty or unlimited prosperity. It is a Liberal conceit to believe that only they believe in such things and to have any doubt on the unlimited ability of either is to not really believe in them.
"Mark seems to admit the economic necessity of immigration, but seemingly only insofar as immigration props up a "pyramid scheme"." I need to break this sentence in half, first off I do not admit the economic necessity of immigration, what I said was "I unfortunately see that that could have serious consequences for the economy"(of ending immigration suddenly), which means lets engage in economic change in a responsible manner. As I am seeking to move from an economy where many rely on immigration for their livelihood to one where hardly anyone relies on immigration for their livelihood, that change should not be sudden. Quite a different thing. Secondly different industries rely on immigration to different degrees, building for example is heavily dependent upon immigration and to allow change people need time to adjust.
"a net immigration intake of 0 would be not only desirable, but feasible and without any negative consequences." Here Mr. Panther is stating my opinion accurately, except for one minor point. I do believe we could have a 0 immigration intake, the only reason I put it at 1/1000 or 23,000 is to cover those personal relationships, services to Australia or truly exceptional candidates such as world leading experts that may need entry to Australia. It has nearly no economic consideration at all. But I do not believe this has no negative consequences, all decisions have consequences. But as I also wrote "Immigration should only exist for one reason and that is to benefit the nation, if it doesn't do that then it should end.". In the current economic climate, immigration should end.
Now we get to the crux of the Liberal economic argument and it is here that I have the most to object to. Even when most countries had protectionist policies world trade continued, this idea that only Liberal economics allows trade is rarely stated but most heavily implied and it is wrong.
"If one country, our country, closed it's borders or set an arbitrary (low) limit on immigration, we would not be allowing supply to meet demand. The economy would stagnate as business would cease to be able to grow for lack of labour supply." Now heres one I have alot of problems with. Mr. Panther is a smart man, I would go so far as to say very smart. How can he believe that Australia has a labour shortage? Or even that we have a potential labour shortage? The reality is we have 700,000 unemployed and we have a further 800,000 adults in post secondary school education. That means that in the next 5 years the economy must create at least 1,500,000 jobs, half of them right away! We do not have a labour shortage, this should be quite clear.
These ideas are why the Working class hate the Liberal Party and in America the Republican Party and in Britain the Conservative Party. Because they treat the Working class with utter contempt, they export our jobs to the third world and at the same time bring in foreigners to compete with us for work. They create unemployment and poverty and tell everyone, not least themselves that they are such brilliant economic managers. If that were true unemployment would have been eliminated but it has not been eliminated and in fact many think they want mass unemployment. It would certainly fit with their continuous effort to destroy the Working class, something they deny but which I see every day all around me.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Stages of Liberal Reform
Friday, 4 July 2014
A New Link - Adventures in Keeping House
A New Link - Adventures in Keeping House
I only have 5 links so far, as I do not want to link to a site I do not agree with, or that I only agree with a little bit. Adventures in House Keeping aka A Thrifty Homemaker is a Dutch site, in English that have shared a number of my articles and I thought it was about time I added it to my small exclusive list. You'll find some good Traditional Conservative insights and opinions here, enjoy!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
An Immigration Proposal
An Immigration Proposal
This year the Australian Government will admit into Australia nearly 210,000 immigrants. This at a time when there are more than 700,000 unemployed in Australia and that figure is only if you accept the official unemployment figures. Figures that leave out anyone who has received paid work of more than 1 hour a month or who does any work, including unpaid work on a farm. These immigrants will of course compete against the unemployed in looking for work. As a Traditional Conservative I can see an argument for allowing immigration, but I cannot see an argument in favour of keeping the unemployed without work in favour of immigrants. In fact my attitude to immigrants and towards white Australians who support them over their fellow Australians has hardened considerably.
But while I want an immediate end to immigration, I unfortunately see that that could have serious consequences for the economy, because like most Western countries Australia is part of an immigration pyramid scheme. A scheme that imports people to hide how bad our society is functioning and to provide cheap labour to industry. It also keeps many builders, architects and developers in employment who continue to make our cities harder places to live. Our goal should be twofold 1) to end the importation of a new people to replace us and 2) to end the economic pyramid scheme that demands more and more or it will collapse.
To that order I propose a plan that would reduce immigration from the cuurent (nearly) 1 in 100 to a much more manageable 1 in 1000. From 210,000 a year to 23,000 a year, over the course of 7 years. By reducing the intact by 25,000 each year until we reach our target.
175,000
150,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
23,000
This allows each area of the economy to adjust to the new conditions and gives companies and workers a chance to adjust as well. While we each harbour a desire to get back at those who have allowed the current state of affairs to exist and to punish them. Politically and economically we must resist such thoughts. Conservatives have an advantage that others do not have as we can see things in the long term. That means that instead of changing things overnight we can take time to change things around us, we should use that to our advantage. Immigration should only exist for one reason and that is to benefit the nation, if it doesn't do that then it should end. 23,000 a year isn't exactly ending it but it means that those who are allowed in have to have a very good argument for being allowed in.
Now lets compare my proposal to the current intake.
Over 5 years
Current: 1,050,000
Mine : 625,000
Over 10 years
Current: 2,100,000
Mine: 767,000
Over 20 years
Current: 4,200,000
Mine: 997,000
Thats a difference of more than 3 million, thats a big number when you remember that Australia's current population is 23,000,000.
Of course sadly this is just an idea, a proposal, I do not have the power to make this happen but it is important to think about what you would do if you did have the power. Both as an intellectual exercise and as a way of defining what you believe and to define how practical an idea it is. I have further thoughts on refugees but I'll leave them for the moment.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
6-of-20 Freedom and Private Property
This year the Australian Government will admit into Australia nearly 210,000 immigrants. This at a time when there are more than 700,000 unemployed in Australia and that figure is only if you accept the official unemployment figures. Figures that leave out anyone who has received paid work of more than 1 hour a month or who does any work, including unpaid work on a farm. These immigrants will of course compete against the unemployed in looking for work. As a Traditional Conservative I can see an argument for allowing immigration, but I cannot see an argument in favour of keeping the unemployed without work in favour of immigrants. In fact my attitude to immigrants and towards white Australians who support them over their fellow Australians has hardened considerably.
But while I want an immediate end to immigration, I unfortunately see that that could have serious consequences for the economy, because like most Western countries Australia is part of an immigration pyramid scheme. A scheme that imports people to hide how bad our society is functioning and to provide cheap labour to industry. It also keeps many builders, architects and developers in employment who continue to make our cities harder places to live. Our goal should be twofold 1) to end the importation of a new people to replace us and 2) to end the economic pyramid scheme that demands more and more or it will collapse.
To that order I propose a plan that would reduce immigration from the cuurent (nearly) 1 in 100 to a much more manageable 1 in 1000. From 210,000 a year to 23,000 a year, over the course of 7 years. By reducing the intact by 25,000 each year until we reach our target.
175,000
150,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
23,000
This allows each area of the economy to adjust to the new conditions and gives companies and workers a chance to adjust as well. While we each harbour a desire to get back at those who have allowed the current state of affairs to exist and to punish them. Politically and economically we must resist such thoughts. Conservatives have an advantage that others do not have as we can see things in the long term. That means that instead of changing things overnight we can take time to change things around us, we should use that to our advantage. Immigration should only exist for one reason and that is to benefit the nation, if it doesn't do that then it should end. 23,000 a year isn't exactly ending it but it means that those who are allowed in have to have a very good argument for being allowed in.
Now lets compare my proposal to the current intake.
Over 5 years
Current: 1,050,000
Mine : 625,000
Over 10 years
Current: 2,100,000
Mine: 767,000
Over 20 years
Current: 4,200,000
Mine: 997,000
Thats a difference of more than 3 million, thats a big number when you remember that Australia's current population is 23,000,000.
Of course sadly this is just an idea, a proposal, I do not have the power to make this happen but it is important to think about what you would do if you did have the power. Both as an intellectual exercise and as a way of defining what you believe and to define how practical an idea it is. I have further thoughts on refugees but I'll leave them for the moment.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
6-of-20 Freedom and Private Property