I have found over the years that when I am speaking to someone on certain topics I'm waiting to see what direction they attack from. Not physically of course, but verbally. In any discussion you will hear arguments that are made to change your opinion and that is how it should be. But I have noticed that often Liberals or those pushing a Liberal agenda, sometimes in ignorance of that fact, will use two mutually exclusive arguments.
A mutually exclusive argument is where more than one idea is being pushed, but if one of them is true then it makes the other argument null and void. For example I might argue that the Moon is made of rock or I may argue that the Moon is made of cheese. The Moon may, at least theoretically, be made of either rock or cheese, but it cannot be made of both. So when I argue that the Moon is both made of rock and cheese that is a mutually exclusive argument. One might be true, the other might be true but they cannot both be true.
But you will hear Liberals and others on the broad Left often argue their case with mutually exclusive arguments.
Feminists will be heard to argue that there is no real difference between men and women, in other words men and women are equal. But you are just as likely to hear them argue that men oppress women and women need to gain equality with men. These are mutually exclusive arguments. If men and women are equal then it is impossible for men to oppress women because such oppression would prove that men and women were not equal. If there is no difference between the sexes then there is no such thing as womens rights or womens issues because quite simply apart from biology there is no such thing as women, or men for that matter. It works in reverse as well, if men do oppress women then women cannot be equal to men, its that simple. Two completely contrary ideas being pushed to argue the for the same cause.
We hear it in arguments about Global Warming, the world is hotter than it was in the past and then half a minute later if we don't do something now the world will get hotter. They are mutually exclusive, one may be true or the other may be true but both cannot be true. We cannot be at war and going to be at war, we either are at war or we are not. We are either in the middle of an environmental catastrophe or we will be, but we cannot be in it now and about to be in it.
The Left Liberals are very good at this mutually exclusive argument, they like to argue that we shouldn't be held back by old fashioned outdated ideas and then to argue that there is nothing new about this, people have been doing this since Moses was a boy. If a couple aren't getting along then they should divorce, someone argues that marriage is sacred and the Left Liberal argues back that you shouldn't be so old fashioned. Then when someone argues that allowing anyone and everyone to divorce is a dangerous new idea, they argue that its a very old idea, Henry the VIII got divorced you know, its been going on for a long time.
They also like the obscure exception. Having sex with children is wrong most people would argue, but the Left Liberal will say "ohhh but this obscure tribe has sex with their children and they've been around for thousands of years!". Then that obscure exception is treated as if its not an exception, as if it is the accepted norm. As the late Lawrence Auster wrote "Christians say in the name of Christ, Muslims say in the name of Allah, Liberals say studies have shown.". When these studies are investigated you find out the tribe consisted of 30 people who no body knows how long they have really existed as a people for and that its nearly impossible to work out if the claim was true, embellished or a lie. But these obscure exceptions are used just as the mutually exclusive argument is, not as a tool of logic but as a tool of deception.
When you find yourself having one of these discussions remember to look out for the mutually exclusive argument. You might not win over the Liberal, but you might get the person next to them thinking and thats a win.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Creating Wealth
Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Friday, 20 February 2015
The Tragedy of the Euro
The Euro, a single European wide currency, was introduced with great optimism by the European Union. It was a great step forward for Liberalism as here was one of the freedoms it wanted, the freedom of money to move between countries unrestricted. In unison with the freedom of movement of labour (people) between countries and of goods. It was a great achievement for economic Liberalism.
They said it would bring people closer together, that it would increase trade and create a richer Europe. And for a time that seemed to be true. Trade did increase and Europe as a whole did get richer. But it wasn't evenly spread, with some countries gaining much more than others. But overall most people, and their leaders, were happy with the Euro.
It gave different advantages to rich and poor countries. Most rich countries had a high rate of exchange for their currency. Most poor countries had a bad rate of exchange for their currencies. The Euro changed that because each country, whether rich or poor, now had the same currency and therefor the same exchange rate. It made business and travel within the Eurozone much easier. It also had advantages outside of the Eurozone, countries that had high exchange rates such as Germany for example, now had a much lower exchange rate. This meant it was cheaper to buy goods made in Germany, so German exports increased. It also encouraged Germans to spend their money within Germany, as it was now more expensive to buy from other countries than it had been before the introduction of the Euro. Over time as the exports made Germany richer that wasn't as obvious as it was at the start. For Germany the Euro was a great thing.
But poor countries also benefited as overnight it made them rich, just as Germany's exchange rate had lowered, so theirs had gone up. Now they had more purchasing power, they could buy more things and everything they owned was now worth more than it had been yesterday. It encouraged economic growth as people had confidence that the future was better than today, and today was already better than yesterday had been. This confidence encouraged borrowing to buy the things that were now in reach, by people, businesses and by Government. It encouraged banks to loan money. If these things had been spent on building the future maybe things would have gone differently. But instead much of this borrowing was on living now with little thought to the future.
It highlights a major flaw in Liberal economics, it understands that economic growth is good, however it regards all growth as good. It also sees economic activity as good, but it doesn't pay much attention to what that activity is or if it is useful or not. Much of the economic activity and growth within Germany was productive, but the same could not be said for most countries in the Eurozone. Greece for example spent money it didn't have to finance things it wanted and that activity has now come back to haunt it. But most economists treated both countries the same.
In fact one of the great ambitions of the European Union is to make each European country the same as all the others. To use economics to homogenize Europe into one economy, where doing business is the same regardless of country. But to do that not only must each countries currency be the same, but its business laws and its standard of living must be the same. That is why nearly everyone involved in the Euro was happy for this growth to be spent on economically unproductive social programs. It was an attempt to use Capitalism to finance Socialism. Socialism whether used in the Soviet Union or the European Union or anywhere else, doesn't work for a very simple reason. It takes wealth from productive areas of the economy and spends it on unproductive areas. And when it doesn't work that is often perversely seen as proof that not enough has been spent, so even more wealth is then spent on the unproductive areas. Over time it destroys wealth permanently.
When Greece could no longer pay its debt, it was offered a way out, more debt in exchange for an austerity program. When Greece got into trouble it wasn't treated as a part of an integrated Eurozone, no it was treated as a distinct problem. But Liberal economics still ruled, the way to get out of debt was to give Greece more debt. It's never worked in the past but that didn't deter anyone.
It is now clear that Greece lied to get into the Euro and the rest of Europe was happy to believe the lies, even grateful that it was lied too. Now that has come back to bite everyone involved. Greece should not have been allowed to join the Euro, but it was. Greece now doesn't want to continue the austerity program, it doesn't want to pay back the debt and the Eurozone doesn't want to continue loaning money to Greece. But I believe that they all will continue. It would be better if Greece left the Euro and went back to the Drachma. Greece has a long and ignoble history of economic mismanagement and I sadly don't see that ending either. That means that further loans may make things worse not better.
When this happens again and it will, how will Europe pay for it? Nearly every country is running a deficit. This is a tragedy happening right now before our eyes and I don't see a happy ending.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The United Nations and its Rightful Place
They said it would bring people closer together, that it would increase trade and create a richer Europe. And for a time that seemed to be true. Trade did increase and Europe as a whole did get richer. But it wasn't evenly spread, with some countries gaining much more than others. But overall most people, and their leaders, were happy with the Euro.
It gave different advantages to rich and poor countries. Most rich countries had a high rate of exchange for their currency. Most poor countries had a bad rate of exchange for their currencies. The Euro changed that because each country, whether rich or poor, now had the same currency and therefor the same exchange rate. It made business and travel within the Eurozone much easier. It also had advantages outside of the Eurozone, countries that had high exchange rates such as Germany for example, now had a much lower exchange rate. This meant it was cheaper to buy goods made in Germany, so German exports increased. It also encouraged Germans to spend their money within Germany, as it was now more expensive to buy from other countries than it had been before the introduction of the Euro. Over time as the exports made Germany richer that wasn't as obvious as it was at the start. For Germany the Euro was a great thing.
But poor countries also benefited as overnight it made them rich, just as Germany's exchange rate had lowered, so theirs had gone up. Now they had more purchasing power, they could buy more things and everything they owned was now worth more than it had been yesterday. It encouraged economic growth as people had confidence that the future was better than today, and today was already better than yesterday had been. This confidence encouraged borrowing to buy the things that were now in reach, by people, businesses and by Government. It encouraged banks to loan money. If these things had been spent on building the future maybe things would have gone differently. But instead much of this borrowing was on living now with little thought to the future.
It highlights a major flaw in Liberal economics, it understands that economic growth is good, however it regards all growth as good. It also sees economic activity as good, but it doesn't pay much attention to what that activity is or if it is useful or not. Much of the economic activity and growth within Germany was productive, but the same could not be said for most countries in the Eurozone. Greece for example spent money it didn't have to finance things it wanted and that activity has now come back to haunt it. But most economists treated both countries the same.
In fact one of the great ambitions of the European Union is to make each European country the same as all the others. To use economics to homogenize Europe into one economy, where doing business is the same regardless of country. But to do that not only must each countries currency be the same, but its business laws and its standard of living must be the same. That is why nearly everyone involved in the Euro was happy for this growth to be spent on economically unproductive social programs. It was an attempt to use Capitalism to finance Socialism. Socialism whether used in the Soviet Union or the European Union or anywhere else, doesn't work for a very simple reason. It takes wealth from productive areas of the economy and spends it on unproductive areas. And when it doesn't work that is often perversely seen as proof that not enough has been spent, so even more wealth is then spent on the unproductive areas. Over time it destroys wealth permanently.
When Greece could no longer pay its debt, it was offered a way out, more debt in exchange for an austerity program. When Greece got into trouble it wasn't treated as a part of an integrated Eurozone, no it was treated as a distinct problem. But Liberal economics still ruled, the way to get out of debt was to give Greece more debt. It's never worked in the past but that didn't deter anyone.
It is now clear that Greece lied to get into the Euro and the rest of Europe was happy to believe the lies, even grateful that it was lied too. Now that has come back to bite everyone involved. Greece should not have been allowed to join the Euro, but it was. Greece now doesn't want to continue the austerity program, it doesn't want to pay back the debt and the Eurozone doesn't want to continue loaning money to Greece. But I believe that they all will continue. It would be better if Greece left the Euro and went back to the Drachma. Greece has a long and ignoble history of economic mismanagement and I sadly don't see that ending either. That means that further loans may make things worse not better.
When this happens again and it will, how will Europe pay for it? Nearly every country is running a deficit. This is a tragedy happening right now before our eyes and I don't see a happy ending.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The United Nations and its Rightful Place
Sunday, 15 February 2015
Australia, more people, less Australians
Australia's current population is 23,000,000 and of those 17,000,000 were born in Australia, that means that 6,000,000 were not. 6,000,000 was Australia's entire population in 1925.
Here I present evidence from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Historical Population Statistics, if you wish to do your own research just download the Migration file, then look at Tab 7.1.
The file goes back to 1925, so the 1920's are only half a decade, you will also notice that more people left Australia in the 1930's than arrived due to the severity of the economic depression. The 1940's is really the last 3 years, before that more people left than arrived. Migration has gone up and down, sometimes quite dramatically since 1950, the lowest by a long way was 13,515 in 1975, the highest was 315,687 in 2008, both years Labor was in power.
1925-29 = 170,396
1930-39 = -2,563
1940-49 = 219,236
1950-59 = 896,450
1960-69 = 971,577
1970-79 = 684,544
1980-89 = 1,079,878
1990-99 = 790,187
2000-09 = 1,700,343
2010 = 172,038
You will notice that the first decade of this century saw nearly as many immigrants as the 1980's and 1990's combined, 1,700,000.
Lets look at it another way, by each quarter century (25 year) period
1925-50 = 387,069
1951-75 = 2,334,539
1976-00 = 2,088,097
2001-10 =1,872,381 (at this rate by 2025 there will be 4,255,411)
According to Characteristics of Recent Migration, November 2013, Australia's population over the age of 15 is 18,295,900.
Australian born 12,474,300 (68%)
Foreign born 5,821,600 (32%)
In 2013 10% of Australia's population aged over 15, 1,821,100 of them, had been here 10 years or less. And each year it continues.
Now lets look at it a 3rd way, by political parties since 1945 when the Department of Immigration was formed. Governments don't change on the 1st January, so I will count the last year of a Government as fully theirs. The next full year will be the next parties. For example in 1949 Labor lost Government to the Liberals, 1949 is counted as all Labor, 1950 as all Liberal.
Total Immigrants between 1945-2010 = 4,542,684
Australian Labor Party
2,320,906
Total years in office between 1945-2010 = 24 years
Liberal Party&Country/National Party
2,221,778
Total years in office between 1945-2010 = 41 years
Labor is worse, but the Liberals aren't innocent by any means. This needs to stop!
Both major political parties are making Australians a minority in our own country!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Self Regulation
Here I present evidence from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Historical Population Statistics, if you wish to do your own research just download the Migration file, then look at Tab 7.1.
The file goes back to 1925, so the 1920's are only half a decade, you will also notice that more people left Australia in the 1930's than arrived due to the severity of the economic depression. The 1940's is really the last 3 years, before that more people left than arrived. Migration has gone up and down, sometimes quite dramatically since 1950, the lowest by a long way was 13,515 in 1975, the highest was 315,687 in 2008, both years Labor was in power.
1925-29 = 170,396
1930-39 = -2,563
1940-49 = 219,236
1950-59 = 896,450
1960-69 = 971,577
1970-79 = 684,544
1980-89 = 1,079,878
1990-99 = 790,187
2000-09 = 1,700,343
2010 = 172,038
You will notice that the first decade of this century saw nearly as many immigrants as the 1980's and 1990's combined, 1,700,000.
Lets look at it another way, by each quarter century (25 year) period
1925-50 = 387,069
1951-75 = 2,334,539
1976-00 = 2,088,097
2001-10 =1,872,381 (at this rate by 2025 there will be 4,255,411)
According to Characteristics of Recent Migration, November 2013, Australia's population over the age of 15 is 18,295,900.
Australian born 12,474,300 (68%)
Foreign born 5,821,600 (32%)
In 2013 10% of Australia's population aged over 15, 1,821,100 of them, had been here 10 years or less. And each year it continues.
Now lets look at it a 3rd way, by political parties since 1945 when the Department of Immigration was formed. Governments don't change on the 1st January, so I will count the last year of a Government as fully theirs. The next full year will be the next parties. For example in 1949 Labor lost Government to the Liberals, 1949 is counted as all Labor, 1950 as all Liberal.
Total Immigrants between 1945-2010 = 4,542,684
Australian Labor Party
2,320,906
Total years in office between 1945-2010 = 24 years
Liberal Party&Country/National Party
2,221,778
Total years in office between 1945-2010 = 41 years
Labor is worse, but the Liberals aren't innocent by any means. This needs to stop!
Both major political parties are making Australians a minority in our own country!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Self Regulation
Wednesday, 11 February 2015
The Twenty Third Month
A good month, but not a spectacular one, I think that will be shown by the numbers of visitors and where their from.
I had two worst day's, the 24th January and the 7th February, both with 38 visitors. My best day was the 18th January with 81.
11th January-11th February
11th December-11th January
The United States is back up in the 700's and the United Kingdom is up by 1/3rd. The Ukraine are also up.
I had two worst day's, the 24th January and the 7th February, both with 38 visitors. My best day was the 18th January with 81.
11th January-11th February
11th December-11th January
Australia is only down by 3.
Back into the Top 10 are Romania, Germany and Canada.
The big drop was France, although it fell into the 50's so it's on the way back up. Also down are the Netherlands and Japan.
New Zealand and Russia have been going in and out of the Top 10 all month, sadly they at this moment, they are out.
I have also received visitors from the following countries Ireland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Cyprus, U.A.E., Iran, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, China, Macau, South Korea, Cambodia, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia, Morocco, Nigeria, Djibouti, Kenya, Zambia, South Africa, Mauritius, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Haiti, Brazil, Venezuela,
Mark Moncrieff
Monday, 9 February 2015
What it is to be French
Just a quick link here, over at galliawatch, a site which looks at French politics and society from a Conservative point of view is this excellent video. Check out the link, read the English translation and then watch the video. Pride in self is very important and this is a good way of showing that.
What it is to be French
What it is to be French
Friday, 6 February 2015
The Limits of Freedom
It is often assumed that freedom is good.
So if freedom is good, more freedom must be better.
But as a Traditional Conservative I feel very uneasy about this assumption. It is however an assumption that seems built into modern society, an assumption that underpins Liberalism and the lives we live.
Liberalism believes in absolute freedom, in economics (free trade, the free flow of capital and of labour) and in society (freedom of speech, the press and religion) and of the individual (sexual freedom, freedom to choose, freedom to travel, the freedom to be free from obligations). This absolute freedom says that everyone and everything should be free to choose their own direction and way in life. It is a logical extension of Liberalism and it is entirely consistent with both its theory and practice. However if you asked the average person what freedom was they would probably answer along the lines that freedom is being able to do whatever you want.
If that is correct and I believe it is, then what happens when I decide to murder my enemies? Is that a crime? And if it is, isn't that defining and restricting my freedom? Liberalism has an answer to that, it says that you are free to do as you please as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others. It is a logical and even reasonable qualification, however it isn't consistent. How can someone who is absolutely free have restrictions put upon that freedom?
Here is what Conservative's have come to call the Unprincipled Exception, whereby Liberalism proclaims a universal principle and then makes an exception to it. As Meatloaf said "I'll do anything for love, but I won't do that!". Anything isn't as absolute as it is first implied to be, neither it seems is freedom. However it doesn't change the fact that it is inconsistent and that means that they can use two opposite arguments to advance their cause. First they can argue that they support freedom and more of it, implying that there are no limits. Then they can argue that they don't support people doing just anything they want, of course with freedom comes responsibility. The two arguments are at cross purposes, but the aim is not to be consistent, it is to be all things to all people.
Conservatives have always accepted that freedom is not unlimited, that freedom requires things from us at the same time that we are receiving things. That we have obligations. That one mans freedom can make another man less free. Your freedom to drive at 200 km per hour can have a serious impact on my freedom to have a safe walk. My freedom to learn the drums, might interfere with your freedom to get a good nights sleep. Is driving fast a freedom? Is having a safe walk freedom? Is learning the drums freedom? Is getting a good nights sleep freedom? If freedom is being able to do whatever you want then they are freedoms.
Freedom has always had limits and it is dangerous to let people think that it does not. Many people talk about their rights, which in modern parlance means freedom, the freedom to do as they want. Conservatives have always believed that at the same time as rights we also have obligations. It may be your right to cross the road, but it is also your obligation to keep yourself safe, that obligation can also protects others from harm. Only by mutual obligations between people and between people and society in general are we really free. Freedom is not licence or selfishness, which is what it becomes when there are no obligations. Freedom is being able to live our lives without interference. But we all know that is not how real life works, absolute freedom is impossible and we know it.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Party that lost its soul - The Australian Labor Party
So if freedom is good, more freedom must be better.
But as a Traditional Conservative I feel very uneasy about this assumption. It is however an assumption that seems built into modern society, an assumption that underpins Liberalism and the lives we live.
Liberalism believes in absolute freedom, in economics (free trade, the free flow of capital and of labour) and in society (freedom of speech, the press and religion) and of the individual (sexual freedom, freedom to choose, freedom to travel, the freedom to be free from obligations). This absolute freedom says that everyone and everything should be free to choose their own direction and way in life. It is a logical extension of Liberalism and it is entirely consistent with both its theory and practice. However if you asked the average person what freedom was they would probably answer along the lines that freedom is being able to do whatever you want.
If that is correct and I believe it is, then what happens when I decide to murder my enemies? Is that a crime? And if it is, isn't that defining and restricting my freedom? Liberalism has an answer to that, it says that you are free to do as you please as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others. It is a logical and even reasonable qualification, however it isn't consistent. How can someone who is absolutely free have restrictions put upon that freedom?
Here is what Conservative's have come to call the Unprincipled Exception, whereby Liberalism proclaims a universal principle and then makes an exception to it. As Meatloaf said "I'll do anything for love, but I won't do that!". Anything isn't as absolute as it is first implied to be, neither it seems is freedom. However it doesn't change the fact that it is inconsistent and that means that they can use two opposite arguments to advance their cause. First they can argue that they support freedom and more of it, implying that there are no limits. Then they can argue that they don't support people doing just anything they want, of course with freedom comes responsibility. The two arguments are at cross purposes, but the aim is not to be consistent, it is to be all things to all people.
Conservatives have always accepted that freedom is not unlimited, that freedom requires things from us at the same time that we are receiving things. That we have obligations. That one mans freedom can make another man less free. Your freedom to drive at 200 km per hour can have a serious impact on my freedom to have a safe walk. My freedom to learn the drums, might interfere with your freedom to get a good nights sleep. Is driving fast a freedom? Is having a safe walk freedom? Is learning the drums freedom? Is getting a good nights sleep freedom? If freedom is being able to do whatever you want then they are freedoms.
Freedom has always had limits and it is dangerous to let people think that it does not. Many people talk about their rights, which in modern parlance means freedom, the freedom to do as they want. Conservatives have always believed that at the same time as rights we also have obligations. It may be your right to cross the road, but it is also your obligation to keep yourself safe, that obligation can also protects others from harm. Only by mutual obligations between people and between people and society in general are we really free. Freedom is not licence or selfishness, which is what it becomes when there are no obligations. Freedom is being able to live our lives without interference. But we all know that is not how real life works, absolute freedom is impossible and we know it.
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
The Party that lost its soul - The Australian Labor Party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)