Another Pathetic Excuse for Coercion (APEC).

There are types of laws, those designed to punish the guilty, those designed to hurt both the innocent and the guilty and those designed to hurt only the innocent. The new laws put in place for the APEC summit are the latter. Nobody who should legitimately be detained will be detained by these laws, nor will these laws serve any purpose other than to prevent the exercise of a persons rights. Nor is it the case that this is the result of ignorance or stupidity on the part of legislators, it is the sole consequence of malice. Put plainly these laws are acts of conscious evil.
When people are arrested under these laws they are detained for a period determined by politicians with no fair trial, either to determine guilt or an appropriate period of detainment. Judges will be required to have a presumption in favour of jailing people, who have not been convicted of anything. This is not only a blantant violation of their right to due process and presumption of innocence but wholy unneccesary for punishing the legally guilty. The legally guilty are by definition provably so, and therefore evidence of their wrongdoing can be put before a judge. Judges routinely remand defendents in custody if the benefit to the public interest outways the private interest in not being detained. Not only are the legally guilty detainable by this but those who the judge thinks are likely to be guilty and to reoffend while on bail. The new laws do not affect this, they only affect those a judge would not think are likely enough to offend that their remanding is justified. Only those the judge thinks are not a threat suffer. They suffer at the sole behest of the police, with no judical input whatsoever, contray to the Magna Carta. That’s happening a lot lately mostly (although not in this case) due to a ruler called John. Gee what happened the last time we had a ruler named John and our rights weren’t being respected? Could we do that again? Would that work?
The argument will be advanced that these measures are neccesary to protect the public, but as I’ve shown they only affect those who are no identifiable threat to it. So how do they protect anybody? Well perhaps they protect us against people who are a threat but can’t be proved as such even to the low standards of a bail hearing. This is a rediculous argument, the whole point of a bail hearing keep people in jail where the cost to the community of being free until trial is higher than the cost to them of letting them free until them. Therefore this law only results in detaining those who it is not worth detaining, thus costing the community through detention of it’s members. So the protection is evidently not worth the cost as judged even by those the state hires to make such judgements. Bear in mind these are people are paid by the government, not the community and responsible to the government not the community. So it’s asking for the power to lock people up when even people it pays won’t back it’s decision to lock them up without a required presumption (i.e. prejudice) against them!
However there’s one intelligent suggestion Iemma and co., random police searches. I’ve wanted to randomly search police for years. It’s amazing how often they’re carrying dangerous weapons. They claim they carry them to defend themselves and enforce the law. However I’ve checked and according to the new laws I’m not allowed to have guns for that purpose. Some people have suggested that the police randomly search people in the city, which makes no sense. It’s an admission that you have no idea how to stop terrorism and now you’re just guessing what might work. Even inveterate sociopaths do not generally have incriminating evidence right on them. The terrorist population is less than 1/100,000th of the population, unless there’s more than 40 terrorists in Sydney right now. So clearly if the aim is to catch terrorists the resources wasted will be massive. Since any terrorists will be aware of these searches they will have scouts out to guide them away from points where they might be search. Of course if the idea is to get the populace used to warrantless, unjustified searches and random police harrassment it’s brilliant.
Those who drafted and passed these law are not ignorant of the law, most of them are qualified lawyers and/or experienced legislators and those that aren’t have the advice of others that are. It is ludicrous to expect that legislation to could reach parliment without a lawyer examining and advising it’s proponents on it’s actual effect. This is particularly true regarding the NSW labour Right who excel in intelligence and knowledge, if not morality. So we cannot conclude that these laws were a mistake, they were a deliberate attempt to subvert our freedoms for political gain and thus a violation of the oaths of office of all the legislators who either voted for them or advanced them. Simply put they are immoral and somewhat treasonous and those who voted for them mostly knew it.

Why Labour's policies are the Liberals fault.

The Labour Party's new labour policy has just been announced and from what I can tell it's a shocker. They openly boast about how they'll be an interfering busibody in every shopping centre ready to tell you how to relate to your workers. But I don't blame the Labour Party I blame John Howard, who was the one who usurped vast power over the labour market from the states. When labour relations were largely a state responsibility each state competed with the others to have a good investment enviroment. As much as the unions wanted them to screw over their employers and as much as the Labour Party wanted to oblige them they had to contend with the possibility the employers would flee. With the decisions being made at national level it is now far more expensive to flee their reach and so far more onerous burdens can be placed on the shoulders of employers or non-union employees with non-standard contracts. The new policy is an entirely predictable, and predicted outcome of the WorkChoices initiative. Of course few will actually blame Howard for it because his supporters will pretend to see no fault and his attackers will see no fault with the policy. I just wish I had predicted this earlier so I could claim to be a pundit.

If voters have to be registered, does that mean they're lethal weapons.

So anyway I sucumbed to my basest instincts last Saturday and voted. Yeah I know, STR-readers www.strike-the-root.com, I'm scum. You'll be happy to know my depraved attempt to force others to live by my choices failed. Although given the choices they chose to live by that's no good thing. In the word's of the Sydney Morning Herald "the worst government in Australia just got reelected". Well arguably sending us to war on a lie makes the Feds worse but in terms of sheer incompetence the NSW government unquestionably takes the cake. They then sell the cake to a politically connected private firm and agree to close lines at other bakeries so you have to buy the cake from said private firm or starve half to death waiting for lunch. Then the former premier gets a $400,000 a year job advising on cake marketing.

There will perhaps be vicious rumours that I voted for Peter Debnam, the least competent opposition leader in NSW history. This is a lie. I voted against Iemma, see the difference? Ok, you got me there is none in effect. The choice was between a party that had failed in every major area I could think of. Roads, hospitals, police, urban planning, civil order, everything. With the singular exception of reducing the state debt (which will of course increase again when they spend money to fix the problems after the election) they have done nothing any sane person would vote for.

And the mistakes weren't understandable, average mistakes they were whoppers. I mean what sort of idiot has a roads policy that deliberately increases congesting on public roads to increase the revenue of a private road proprietor? Did they really think that wouldn't leak? And then they tried to get the private road operator to simply waive those clauses of the contract, a contract they had paid the State government about a hundred million to get. Even assuming the directors were incredibly generous (with other people's money) how in the hell did they figure the shareholders would let them? Go back to law school guys, it's called fiduciary responsbility to the owners. The directors are smart enough to know that, after all they were smart enough to hire guy who was premier at the time the deal was signed. I wish I could get a job at several times the average wage after doing my job as badly as he did his.

Then there's the planning power fiasco. Basically nobody owns any land really in the land of the long weekend we just own the right to have our development applications rejected. However at least they're rejected by a semi-accountable, semi-transparent council that has to obey certain rules and that we can take to court. That's not good enough for our lords and masters who wish to be able to inflict any abomination on our communities while retaining the power to forbid anything more offensive than a new veranda light. So Frank Sartor, minister for planning is given the power to override all development laws, including enviromental laws, regulations to do with traffic congestion, native title, the whole bit, to approve anything he thinks is important. Naturally whether or not the project is backed by a rich property developer with bags of cash to donate to NSW Labor has nothing to do with it. That's the sort of rubbish I expect from leftists like http://www.lewrockwell.com/ and their ilk. Mr. Sartor's new powers have been described as "modest", by Mr. Sartor. Mr. Sartor is very rarely so described.

The trains are a shambles due to persistent mismanagement for over a decade. The only way they could stop "on time" records being abysmal was to change the timetable so they say the trains will be later. Hence there are less trains and overcrowding is overwhelming. Freight management's no better with ships waiting for days because the investment hasn't been made in infrastructure.

We're in a drought by the way so naturally the government is trying to tell us what to do with our water. This from the guys who wasted more water than anyone else in Sydney due to poor maintaince of the pipes. So the question arises, should we go for the massively expensive, enviromentally destructive, desalination plant that residents already hate before a sod of earth is turned or the clean, cheap, energy efficent recycling. Iemma claimed that Sydney-siders wouldn't drink recycled sewerage, despite the fact that such is completely safe and already flows into our drinking water from Blue Mountains communities. Of course now the people changed their minds after watching "a current affair" or something but not our Morris. No he's wedded to the idea like Britney Spears after a bender in Vegas. Well actually the commitments lasted longer than that, indicating that Britney has smarter advisers.

But none of this is important. No, what's important is that the voters of NSW will vote against people who didn't bring in "Work Choices" but stands in front of the same banner as the guy who did. So policies are no longer important, it's sheer guilt by association now. The morons that gave Iemma a second chance to "get back to work" (given the job he did this is no promise it's a threat) bought the argument that Debnam was too inexperienced to run NSW. How much experience do you need to know that concentrating all power in Frank Sartor's hands is a stupid idea? How much experience do you need to know that ignoring infrastructure to make your financials look good is bad in the long run? Or that corrupt Private-Public Partnerships that include guarantees that the Private guys won't lose money mean that the Public guys will? I mean think about it, why would a private firm insist on guarantees that an enterprise wouldn't lose money if it was a good idea? If they thought it was a winner they'd be falling over themselves to sign on with no guarantees they wouldn't lose their shirt. They'd concentrate on getting better conditions or prices rather than the right to loot the treasury if it all went pear-shaped. Tell you what voters of New South Wales, elect me. I have experience blaming others for my mistakes, spending money I don't have for lacklustre results, pretending things are going fine and promising I'll change in the future, just like Iemma does. The difference is I'll work for much less than Iemma. Michael Price The Premier You Deserve! And not in a good way.

Wrong on Venezula

Usually the source of a news story tells you much about it’s credibility. The New York Times is not at all credible, Fox news not very, and most of the mainstream media not much better. This has little to do with “left” or “right” bias, Lewrockwell.com and Counterpunch.com are equally excellent. Unfortunately the latter has let us down with the defence of Chávez’s destruction of what little press freedom there is in Venezuela (The Case of Venezuela's RCTV By GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER).

His first defence of the villiany in Venezulan video is the entire thing has nothing to do with free speech. Of course this does not lead to him denying that the non-renewal of a “concession” worth millions of dollars is due to the statements made on behalf of the owners of that concession. Indeed he goes claim that they “endorsed” “organized rebellion and premeditated murder”. Gee what horrible people, presumably the people who did this are under arrest for such things? And of course there would have to be a trial given the seriousness of these allegations? Of course not, they just got their TV station taken away. Well that is to say some of the people ciccariello-mahar accuses did, since he accused all the Venezulan media and only RCTV actually got the axe. Of course the other media owners don’t need to be expropriated, they got the message already and will no longer be endorsing anything but the government. Of course George Washington endorsed rebellion, as did Nelson Mandela and Winston Churchill are these all villians?

A series of “false” claims are trumpeted as the reason why people think that a government taking a TV station away from the legal owner and giving it to someone more pliable is an attack on free speech. Firstly of course it’s entirely false that the government is behaving abnormally. Just because you can’t remember the last time someone did anything like this who wasn’t a dictator siliencing his critics doesn’t mean that it’s abnormal. No it’s entirely normal, it happened at least once before*.

After all it’s all about “media responsibility”. Responsibility to their shareholders? Obviously not since they got ripped off. Their advertisers then? Again, no since they expressed no displeasure at RCTV and if they had they would not need the government’s help to punish them. How about their viewers? Again, no, they don’t seem at all upset with the station. No it’s the government that they are responsible to. And here was I thinking that the press were to keep the government responsible. The army is responsible to the government and the police as well, in a free society the media is not.

Of course “were this constitutional provision fully enforced and legislated, the private media might be able to claim that their existence is somehow more difficult than other media outlets the world over.” and in the case of RCTV they’d be right because he’s refering to a Bolivian constitutional provision which people in Caracus would be rightfully upset about being subject to. He refers to it in an attempt to persuade us that this is all normal, but of course immediately admits that it is not enforced. So having laws designed to be dictatorial on the books is pretty standard, but enforcing them isn’t, and Chavez isn’t just writting them. On the whole though I’d say that the existance of RCTV is more difficult than other media outlets the world over, because it’s now clearly at the whim of the government and no owner can count on investments in it unless assured the government won’t decide to give it the boot. Of course the owners aren’t the station, but they are by definition the ones that control it, that hire the workers, determine what goes on air etc. If they need to bend over for the govenrment so does the entire station.
But perhaps the new owners will be made of sterner stuff, maybe they’re the type to say “Hang the tens of millions of dollars in expense, we’ll tell the truth.”. So who are these new owners, because after all the ‘The government is "closing" a media outlet.’ is another one of those lies we’re being fed. The concession will be “granted to either another private corporation, a mixed public-private corporation, a collective of workers, or some other combination”. Well thank god, for a moment there I thought he’d be vague. The station will be run by either a) people who know that guys with guns can shut them down at any time, b) a combination of the above with the guys with guns that can shut them down, a collective or workers who are not at all connected with, beholden to, allied with or otherwise sympathetic to the guys with guns (they just happened to be passing outside the party room when someone threw out a license to print money) or d) someone else who knows which side his bread is buttered on.

But I’ve skipped ahead, like the ill-manner blogger I am, right over the justification Chavez was acting in accordance with high moral principals just like those of, wait for it, THE FCC! My god, a leftist is appealing for moral sanction from the putrid ethical sludge that slithered, decayed yet vibrant from what we will call the mind and soul of Herbert Hoover. Never mind that the FCC was designed solely for the purpose of controlling the airwaves for the monopoly benefit of the industry players and their corrupt lapdogs in Congress and the White House1. I mean for fuck’s sake pal read the manual, if you’re supporting Chavez you have to be a leftist, and if you’re a leftist you’re supposed to OPPOSE the backroom buggery by the bourgeoise and the beaurcrat of the consumer. It says it right here in “Partisan propaganda crap for dummies”, page 15, or were you too impatient to try out pages 1-14 to read that far? Of course appealing to the FCC for moral sanction has a few pitfalls, like it’s well known “content restrictions on broadcasting”, which are presumably different from censorship because the’re all about responsibility, they are “more strict, it should be mentioned, than in many European nations”. But perhaps I’m being unfair, after all the FCC did shut down a station in similar circumstances so perhaps the comparison is just. You see the owner was saying irresponsible things about how to cure cancer. The FCC acted entirely properly and in no way abused their massive powers to favour the politically powerful A.M.A., don’t listen to that Rothbard guy, he’s got a “conspiratorial veiw of history”.

The FCC licenses and the Chavez government “concessions”, but they are effectively the same thing, which according to incurious George are "the juridical means by which the administration cedes to a person the privative use of something in the public domain, or the management of a public service, for a determinate period of time and under certain conditions.". And what is it that is allegedly in the “public domain,” or consists of “the management of a public service”. Well I happen to have a copy of the TV license here “Youse guys can play send out your telley shows on frequency and we won’t kill you for doing it. Unless we got a really good reason or something.”. So that’s what RCTV has that is “in the public domain” a (nonenforcable) promise that if they do something the government break their heads, nothing more. Those who claim that RCTV owes something to somebody because they’re using a frequency should ask themselves “Who died and left that frequency to the govenrment?”. The government no more holds the spectrum just because it’s got guns than it has freehold on all land it hasn’t sold to some sucker. RCTV was there first and has every right to broadcast without interference as long as they are not interfering with anyone else’s broadcasts. It could only considered “use of a public good” if spectrum wasn’t excludable and rivalrous, which it is and has been since at least April, 1926 and the United States v. Zenith Radio Corp. That case said “first come first served” applying the same rule that applies to land and natural resources in every just land. In any case it can hardly be argued that the government can play around with RCTV because it’s “concession” is so valuable since the only reason it is that valuable is that the Venezulan government has so restricted the media market for the benefit of the oligopolies. Somehow the idea of hurting said oligopolies by actually abandoning the “concession” system and allowing free competition occurs to neither left or right.

Of course the whole “concession” system has been abused for centuries to monopolise things that ar ein no way either “in the public domain” or “management of a public serivce”. There is no real reason why oil is “the public domain” any more than any other resource is, to give an example Ciccariello-maher references. The granting of oil concessions on the basis of government favouritism as opposed to homesteading of well has led to enormous money earners being “traditionally and undemocratically granted to large corporations which have been given free rein to reap unlimited profits” in corrupt deals that encourages the coups, stagnation and violence that have plagued oil rich countries the world over. Of course you might ask what oil concessions, which concern something that run out, have to do with using a fequency which won’t. I don’t know either but somehow they’re all the same according to George. Basically George wants to end “the disgusting privileges of a communications oligarchy allied with international financiers.", or at least the disgusting privileges of that part of the oligarchy that pissed off the all powerful God-President.

That’s ok though because “What could be more democratic than handing Channel 2 over to the 63 percent of Venezuelans who voted for Chávez?”. Well handing over all the channels in America to Ronald Reagan in the 80s, and Margret Thatcher could grab ITV and Thames in merrie old England. Or Mr. Howard could... could... could fucking die if even tries it. I serious John any move to grab TV stations like Chavez did and you’re fucking history. I know where you live. Well so does everyone but still, I know. I mean Jesus H. Christ who is stupid enough to think that giving TV stations as electoral prizes is a good idea? This guy got a degree? All I got out of my cereal packet was a fucking plastic spaceman, no fair.

Here’s an idea what could be more democratic than handing over Channel 2 over to the 63% who voted for Chavez, how about you just ditch the idea that the government owns the airwaves for good? Any joe blow can just start broadcasting whatever he wants provided it doesn’t block an existing signal. That’s pluralism, that’s freedom, that’s “democracy” in the sense of a free society that freely selects it’s leaders by freely examining the issues and openly debating them. What George suggests is “democracy” in the sense of 51% can kill 49% because they say so.
I don’t understand why this crap got on conterpunch.com. Surely they’re leftists but they’re not normally idiots. Just because someone resists the West in general and the US in particular doesn’t make them a saint (you might remember a recently deceased arab who died well, if not soon enough).

The constitution is not a suicide pact, is it?

The idea that the constitution should not be kept to at the cost of the destruction is a popular one. Is it right?

Thomas Sowell is the latest eminent person to insist that the 'The constitution is not a suicide pact.' and as usual the insistence is made to defend encroaching tyranny. There is good reason to believe that adhering the the constitution is not as suicidal as it's detractors imply. Indeed the main dangers to America come from it's violation and I believe that a similar pattern will be evident in all states with a constitution. However let us assume that it is true that survival and obedience to the constitution are incompossible, what then? Let's consider several definitions of 'survival' relevant to the question.

The first definition is 'political survival' or 'national survival' that is to say the survival of the particular State without regard to the survival of the people under it. Clearly if all people under a State die so does the State, but a State can die without a single one of it's people perishing. The death of a State means that the monopoly of force either dies or is exercised over a different geographical area. There is nothing inherently bad about this. Sentimental attachments aside plenty of people live in States that either did not exist when they first moved there or did not rule the territory they live in. While it is true that the new State may be worse it may also be better, I know of no real evidence that changing soveriegnties makes you worse off on average. Indeed if that were the case then where did the better States that people were living in prior to such changes come from?

It clearly states in the Declaration of Independence that 'That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'. Note that this is the sole reason that governments are instituted, there is no other. If a government does not achieve these goals then it is obselete and must be discarded. Certainly many prefer that the laws not change and changing soveriegnties does that, but so does ignoring the constitution. The consitution is the law, and nullifying it is an immense legal change, affecting all other laws. All judges and politicians swear to protect the constituion. They do not swear to protect the State. Now you might think that what they swear to doesn't matter, and the Bush1 administration seems to agree. This doesn't make the State any safer however, the danger of being managed by oathbreakers is far greater than the danger of being bound to the constitution. If you doubt this consider how few people were lynched because blacks could vote as opposed to how many were lynched because they had been disarmed. Consider how many were killed in the USSR, Nazi Germany or even South Africa because of violations by government of people's rights and how few killed because they were enforced.

Secondly 'survival' might mean the physical survival of some number of it's citizens. The idea that the constitution should be put above the survival of a small number of it's citizens is frankly treasonous. If it were true then an attempt to invade the country would have to be met with total surrender. After all if your life is worth abandoning the legal system then so is the life of soldiers and therefore the imposition of a foreign legal code should not be resisted by their deaths. Now you might ask 'What if all the people might be killed if the constitution is not abandoned?', well if there is such a danger (and so far there has never been such a danger that could be prevent by unconstitutional action) people may avoid it simply by emigration. If you donÕt want to live in a country were your life can be sacrificed to freedom then go somewhere where that won't happen. This will not probably make you safer as I have previously stated.
Thirdly 'survival' might mean the survival of the consitution itself, however violating the constitution to prevent it's violation makes no sense. It would be like killing your child to ensure they don't get harmed. If it is possible to violate the constitution any time it is in 'danger' then the constitution is never safe and it's provisions are no longer the highest law of the land, that is to say it is no longer the constitution and has practically died.

So under all the definitions of 'survival' that apply none qualify as worth killing the constitution for. The constitution is not a suicide pact but, flawed as it is, it is something worth the death of a man, or a State for.



1 And to be fair the Clinton administration and most others as well.

A threat to our most sacred freedoms!

Stop reading about the trivial threat "control orders" have to our liberty, forget about the fact that the US can lock up anyone it wants, whereever they find them, for as long as they want without trial. No the real threat to our sacred freedoms has been revealed, THE RIGHT TO FREE SPORT IS UNDER THREAT! That's right soon if you want to view something on TV like the rugby league final, the olympics, events requiring the intense effort of many talented and dedicated people, the organisational skills of others and the capital of still others to transmit you may actually have to PAY said people. The NERVE! Imagine asking people to pay for something just because it cost effort and capital to produce and people want it. Next they'll be asking us to pay for our food, electricity and transport. I mean don't they realise that we're "we the people" and can demand anything we want from anybody for whatever price (including nothing) we want? Don't they realise that there are no possesions that aren't ours if we want them. Don't they realise that the rights of producers as far as we're concerned are just the same as the rights of medieval serfs with regard to their masters? Why are they not bowing before us and making appologies for even suggesting that payment might be required? Let our servants in Canberra go forth and beat them about the head with the speakers make.

Dick Meyer commenting on the Great Fluid Ban says "... I am mystified by our tolerance for the incompetent, politicized and inefficient charade that is now masquerading as transportation security. Apparently the illusion of security is enough."

Well yeah, Dick, where have you been? The terrorism risk aboard an airplane, even in the "post 9/11 world" is probably less than the chance of having a heart attack from the sheer stress of airline stupidity so actual security is not all that valuable. On the other hand the Great Unwashed have been assured that there is a danger. They don't like to think of a danger they and their protectors can't do anything about. The fact that such a danger is trivial is not the point, it's the degree of control the public have. By inflicting various inconveniences and annoyances on the public the government demonstrates that it is capable of doing someone*. Thus they establish a degree of control and through them the public feel a degree of control. This is what they were after, not genuine security, which in practice they already have to a great extent.

He also opines: "Are we to imagine there aren’t great minds at Homeland Security who spend their time thinking of all the possible ways evil-doers could blow up planes? Of course there are. Are we to imagine they never thought about making bombs with stuff in spray cans? Sure they did. And they surely made rational, practical assessments of the risk."

I don't know why he thinks this. In the wake of 9/11 Condeleesa Rice claimed that nobody foresaw that planes could be used as weapons. However they had. In fact it was the subject of a roleplaying game scenario "Fly to heaven" http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2156.html. So the entire Pentagon could not anticipate an event but 4 guys with a few word processors (which is what Atlas games is really) could. I find it extremely unlikely the security forces have any group tasked with imagining ways the terrorists might strike. They tried something like that with "Seal Team Six" and they embarrassed the high command so much they were disbanded. A contingency planning team can only cause problems for the security services and armed forces forcing to acknowledge the inevitable gaps in security, far to numerous to all plug. The last thing they need is for someone to remove their excuse of ignorance.

* I just noticed that I wrote "someone", where I meant to write "something" but perhaps it's a freudian slip.

Internal matters, good for me but not for thee.

The Indonesian government has recently got all upset over John Howard expressing "concern and distress" over Abu Bakir Bashir's release. They say it's an "internal matter" when someone who promoted the murder of Australians is released after only two years. Where was all this concern over internal matters when they protested about the 42 Papuans being granted asylum? The decision to grant asylum is a finding of fact by Australian government officials and is not and cannot legally be subject to Australia's foreign policy. Constitutionally under the doctrine of "Seperation of Powers" John Howard had no more right to change the determination of the proper tribunerals and courts than he has to have the courts find someone guilty they acquited. The response to Indonesia's arrogant and insulting actions was to kowtow and change policy to make asylum seekers, both legitimate and not, more miserable for longer at a cost of millions to the Australian taxpayer. Needless to say the Indonesians were not so accommodating when our government commented on their system.

In a facile and stupid article in the SMH Gerald Henderson took aim at those that support West Papuan independence. Yes, Gerald it is racist to oppose the breakup of the Indonesian state, considering how much people supported the breakup of the Yugoslavian state for far less oppressive actions. If the West Papuans were white you would have no problem with their independence. Mr. Henderson claims that the asylum seekers "engaging in public debate" is counterproductive? Why? Because "to imply that this policy [of the ALP and the coalition not supporting independence] will change is misleading]. The problem is that nobody implied that. The Papuans simply talked about the bad things the Indonesian government is doing and why independence is a good thing, not surprising behaviour from seccessionists. It got him talking about Papua and civil rights violations there, so at least it's raising awareness.

On the subject of rights violations Mr. Henderson was disingenous saying "The extent of human rights violations in Papua is a matter of contention.". No doubt it is, but then so is whether the holocaust happened*. The only evidence he presents is a statement by someone on Lateline that there is no contemporary evidence [note, contemporary, so presumably there is historical evidence for this] that Indonesian special forces or inteliigence are systemactically going after Papuan independence activists for assasination. This is pretty weak tea. All it says is that a particular type of abuse isn't happening right now to a particular type of people in a particular way (systematically) by two particular groups. The actions of Indonesian backed militias are removed from the equation as are non-"systematic" murders or murders of non-activists. Nobody would write this unless they had nothing better to write in defence of the indefensible. It was perhaps the most hypocritical thing I've read in the Herald. To describe the proposed changes in asylum seeker policy as "reform" is the final insulting icing on a putrid cake.



* It did.

Government shoots self in foot, soldier didn't shoot himself anywhere.

Well they're still trying to figure out how poor private Kovco got a bullet in his head. The official story version 4 is "we don't know". That would be fine if it had been official story version 1, nobody expects instant omniscence from our fearless leaders. Instead we got "it went off while he was cleaning it", an unlikely story given Kovco was a qualified sniper, which indicates both high intelligence and respect for weapons. I initially suspected suicide for that very reason, but it turns out there were no powder burns on the body,<1> meaning it was fired from at least 4 foot away. So story number one was rubbish, and anyone who had any information about the events should have known it, particularly highly qualified officers.

Then there was official story number 2 that he had moved the gun and somehow it went off. Again this is contradicted by the powder residue evidence.

Then there was official statement number 3 that he had somehow dropped his laptop computer on to it and it had discharged. This was perhaps the weakest explanation. For a start how does a laptop falling onto a properly designed and maintained pistol, in it's holster cause it to go off? Simply having the corner of it wedge between the trigger and trigger guard won't do, there has to be pressure on the back of the butt. This safety feature prevents discharge if nobody is actually holding the pistol to shoot. Then there's the question of how the bullet ends up in his temple if it came from underneath. Finally this version as all the other versions before it did, contradicts the powder burn evidence or rather lack thereof.

Now this is more than just guessing 3 times and getting it wrong, as callous as that is to Shelly, Tyrie and Alana Kovco. The government knew all along that there were two people in the room when it happened and either of them could have told them none of these versions were true. So what's going on? Guns just don't go off. Particularly not guns bought by one of the most professional militaries in the world and maintained by a qualified sniper. The government gave information that it ought to have known was bad at least 3 times. Either the military is consistently handing them rumours instead of confirmed fact or the government is trying to spin something. But what? Were the other two soldiers in the room "skylarking" with Kovco's gun? If so what efforts were made to investigate what they were doing? A simple GunShot Residue should confirm or disprove their firing the gun. If this test was done what are the results? If not why was this simple investigative step not taken. I can think of no reason why you would not test someone in the room of a suspicious gunshot death for GSR. Not doing so is arguably deriliction of duty. Perhaps that's the extent of the spin, simply covering up for shoddy investigation. I hope so, but knowning the Howard government we won't get the truth until we drag it kicking and screaming into the light, presumerably after next election.

Oh yeah and they've lost the bullet. That should be a firing offense all by itself but don't hold your breathe.

<1> In fact this was an error, apparently there were such burns when the coroner examined the body, or at least burns "consistent" with powder burns. There just wasn't any powder. So either the powder was washed off, as apparently happened or something weird is going on. Of course this means even more evidence was compromised than previously suspected.

Another Whacking Bribe.

For those of you that are either not Australian or have been living under a rock, the Australian Wheat Board has been caught giving backhanders to Saddam's cronies. This happened back when it was worth being Saddam's crony in 2000 and the Australia government only recently found out about it. Well that's their story anyway, and by GOD they are sticking to it. I don't know which I'd prefer, having a government so corrupt it would turn a blind eye to kickbacks that funded weapons aimed at it's troops or one so stupid it didn't know that the trucking deal was corrupt. I mean requiring vendors to use a particular firm for transportation, storage etc. and getting a backhander from your friend who owns it, surely that's the oldest trick in the book? I mean the Babylonian government has been using that one since before the Code of Hammurabi.

You might remember than "Honest John" Howard backed the invasion with all his might, all the way with LBJ-style. I can't think of a good ryhme for GWB, so all you frustrated lefty lyricists start working on it. Well after the invasion the Yanks started looking into the oil-for-food thing, hoping to find corruption. In somewhere other than Halliburton I mean. Now at this point you have to wonder, what the hell was Johnny thinking? I mean he was warned 6 years before by the Canadians that the deal stunk, and we know that he believed them because he didn't try to find out if it was true. Mr. Howard has become rather good at not knowing things that his senior civil servants knew and thus not being blamed for it. So why didn't he have a quiet word with George and Dick and the gang, over a barbeque (not a hunting trip as he is very anti-gun) and tell them to call off the dogs a bit? I mean what's the point of having friends in high places if you can't give the nod to the investigating officer? I mean is this man an Australian at all? He's a disgrace to the traditions of the New South Wales colony.

Instead John actually starts an inquiry into what happened. Lord, love us and save us we know what happened. Saddam wanted wheat, the farmers (a powerful lobby but not much subsidised down under) wanted to sell him wheat through the "single desk" wheat monopoly and Saddam wanted a kickback for doing it. Blind freddy could have told you what happened, why start a bloody inquiry? I mean asking questions is fine for fun, in university halls, and internet chatrooms but it shouldn't be mixed with politics. If it is it can only lead to answers, and who wants that? One government spokesman said that the AWB had looked after the interests of Australian farmers well. Well yeah, that's the point, a little too well. The whole thing is so stressful that many of the AWB officers like Trevor Fluge, the Chairman and the Middle East Manager Mark Emons are suffering amnesia. This serious condition can affect their ability to earn income for years. I just hope they get a good golden handshake to make up for it.

So anyway the AWB looks like it might have to disolve, or not, it seems to change each week. The Iraqis are refusing to deal with them because they were once bent. Apparently being muslim Challabi, Allawi and Sistani haven't heard the story about throwing the first stone. I mean pot calling kettle, come in kettle.

In the meantime Kim Beazely, who was narrowly avoiding arrest for impersonating an opposition leader is doing well complaining about someone doing exactly what he would have done at the time. It's sorta like the Democrats complaining about the NSA phone-tapping. You know they should but you can't imagine they're doing it honestly.
I mean after forcing the telcos to install stuff that let the government tap half a percent of all phone calls at once what did they think it would be used for? Oh well it's all part of life's rich tapestry.


Alternate meanings of AWB;
Amnesiacs With Booty.
Always With Bucks.
Australia's Wonderful Briefcases.

Leaving the Iraqis high and dry.

Jeremy Sapienza responded* to a claim on tomgpalmer.com** by Greg that "the rest of us grapple with the serious issues about how to ... bring the troops home without leaving the Iraqis high and dry," with the claim that " 'leaving the iraqis high and dry' is so obviously the absolute best possible thing that could happen to Iraqis since they got the electric lightbulb". Neither of these claims can be taken seriously. The issue of how to bring the troops home without leaving the Iraqis high and dry is not serious. It will not be serious until someone figures out a way to keep the troops there without leaving the Iraqis high and dry. That is a subject that Greg would "grapple" with if he really thought about not leaving the Iraqis high and dry, which he doesn't. So far no hawk "libertarian" or otherwise has figured out how to do it. The Iraqis are stratospheric and absolutely dessicated now, and sorry Jeremy but it's far from the "best thing since ... the electric lightbulb".

Let's start by defining our terms. "High and dry" means without protection from vicious Jihadis, sociopathically ambitions powermongers, nationalist terrorists, criminals, personal enemies, random pyschos, foriegn agents provocateurs, government death squads and last and probably least mistaken revenge attacks. At the moment outside the Green Zone Iraqis don't get that from the US government or it's Iraqi puppet. If someone wants to kill you they basically can unless you have connections to a private militia and even then it's no "cakewalk". Every day we hear of civilians being killed, far less often we hear of their killers being called to account. When was the last time someone who murdered for political or religious reasons was actually charged in Iraq? Convicted? Or even just summarily executed?

So how did this happen? How did a country with over 1 fully armed, highly trained, relatively competently led***, soldier for every 140 people manage to be totally without effective armed protection? Especially considering that they have what 50 Iraqi regiments backing them up? Well here's the thing, the occupation forces aren't there to protect the Iraqis but to protect the Iraqi government. If the form and content of the Iraqi State can't change without Washington's say so they have succeeded, if they can it has failed. Violent deaths of civilians have nothing to do with their objectives and indeed sometimes favour them. The troops simply have no reason to prevent violence, other than against themselves or other servants of the masters. Protecting those that are useful to the occupation however is top priority, even when they are ruthless killers who brutalise other groups, for example the Shia "Wolf Brigade" or the Kurdish peshmerga. These groups have local knowledge and advantages that the occupationm sorely needs and so cannot be alienatied just becaues they did a few murders, most of which they would argue serve coalition purposes. Like a 1960s sheriff's department in the deep south did not provide protection to their black citizens but to their oppressors the occupation forces protect those who violate Iraqi rights from those they target. Of course only those percieved to be useful to the occupation get protection from the just wrath of their victims but this policy also benefits the regimes enemies.

Without knowing who is responsible for a given attack victims and their relatives cannot effectively investigate it by themselves. To do so would invite further attacks if the offenders turned out to be working with the coalition or had more influence with them than the victims. If the offenders have such a relationship or influence any questions may lead to a dank cell in one the many Iraqi government torture centres. Government investigations are also difficult because nobody trusts the coalition forces or their puppet police. Many people feel that cooperation with the "legitimate" authorities is betraying the cause of the resistence, and to an extent they're right. If the "legitimate" authorities delivered protection they would be secure and would probably never leave. Any information will also be used to try to track down insurgents that may have the informers sympathy. In addition it is well known that various violent groups have infiltrated both the police and the army and so giving information may not be safe.

It should be noted also that violence is being rewarded even if it is directed at coalition troops. Muqtada al-Sadr raised an army against the occupation that could only be defeated by destroying large parts of Bagdad. The US baulked at that (despite having already done similar things several times) and allowed him to gain a political role. He is now in the Iraqi parliment and being consulted on everything from the new constitution to who should be in the Iraqi army. My bet is he thinks his boys should be. He has ensured his own political relevance, a cushy job and the ability to distribute patronage all by simply killing a few foreign infidels. He didn't even have to murder them since he acted in legitimate defence of his rights. Later we heard denials (from both sides) that the US was negotiating with the insurgents. Predictably these denials were false. The US was negotiating with Sunnis for their support and needed most of the Sunni insurgency on side for it to work. So again the process goes, shoot Americans, destablise regime, wait the regime to negotiate, walk off with big cash and prizes. This is hardly the sort of thing that will discourage violence.

In the absence of foreign troops of course much violence will continue, but one thing will change. Thugs will have to both protect themselves and pay their own way. There will be no US funds to relieve them of their day job or foreign arms to protect them from retaliation. The "Wolf Brigade" will have to either stop killing people or protect themselves from their relatives, without picking up the phone to Big Red One. History suggests when the violent have to pay for their own violence, they buy less of it. If you really don't want to leave the civilians high and dry, get the troops out.

*http://anti-state.com/blog/2005/11/12/i-believe-in-peace-bitch/
** http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026869.php
*** While the top leadership is amazingly incompetent the lieutenants, captains
etc. are better than those of most armies.

Does the “fair share” law violate due process?

In the hillarious series “Fat Pizza” Habib sees a “Police now targetting” sign which usaully has “speeding”, “drunk driving”, etc inserted at the end. However this sign states “Police now targeting _Lebanese_”. Later on sees another sign that announces they are now targeting him! The shareholders of a certain large cheap retail chain may now be empathising with the poor Habib.
Health care “reformers” passed a “fair share law” in Maryland designed to force retailers that employ over 10,000 workers to spend at least 8% of their payroll in that State for health benefits. Normally I’d dismiss this as another know-nothing interference in the market that overrides the desires of those it intends to benefit and damages firms that try to provide jobs and products that Marylanders want. But there is a more sinister implication this time because the plural is inappropriate, only 4 firms employ that many Marylanders and three of them already contribute more than that, leaving only one firm affected Walmart. This raises the question is this bill designed to punish Walmart for alleged bad behaviour, and if so does the fact that it was passed in legislature rather than tried in court mean that Walmart’s due process rights have been violated?

Walmart (or if you don’t believe in corporate rights, it’s shareholders) have the right to a fair trial before punishment in the form of reduced profits is inflicted. Laws that affect multiple parties are not punishment for a particular party in themselves because those affected regardless of whether they did anything to encourage the law’s passing. For instance say that logging of old growth forests was banned, affecting ABC timber, DEF Lumber, GHI forestry and the XYZ building (materials) inc., logically nobody would pass such a bill solely to punish XYZ. The present bill could and indeed to some extent probably was pased for exactly that reason. If such a procedure is allowed then government could control any firm by threatening it with tailored legislation that damages only that firm. This would constitute an unconstitutional de facto control of private property. In effect the mere capacity to inflict such harm would be a partial taking of private property without compensation, illegal under the 5th amendment.

I am not saying by this that firms can’t be punished for behaviour that is deemed to be against the public good. If Walmart or any other firm breaks the law then a trail and punishment if convicted is appropriate. Unless of course it’s not which happens*. If the “public” decide that certain behaviour that wasn’t illegal before should be now then any firm continuing that behaviour also should be tried for that behaviour and if the behaviour is proven punishment should be inflicted. However the passing of a law that disadvantages Wal-Mart is itself a punishment and one that predates any trial, indictment, or even legal investigation of the alleged wrongdoing. Various people have for some time accused Walmart of various evils at times validly (e.g. using eminent domain) at times speciously (the accusation that it doesn’t pay “enough” to it’s workers). Whether or not you agree that it did these things or that they deserve punishment is beside the point. If the government wishes to punish people for such behaviour they can pass a law that allows for charges and trials of those found doing it. They may not simply form a plan to punish those they see as committing these evils and implement it the due process of law.

For example, suppose that someone owned the only two storey house in the village. Suppose also that this person gave loud late night parties that disturbed the rest of the village. If their villagers were to inflict a fourfold tax increase for multiple storey buldings that would be an inappropriate way to punish the wrongdoer. The correct way would be to ask the police to investigate the noise or to take accurate sound readings and thereby enable a prosecution if the parties actually broke the law.
A problem with this approach is that it may depend on the legislation being passed for the purpose of punishing the firm, rather than from desire to improve public policy. This raises the question, “Whose purpose?”. The legislators? The lobbyists who pushed for it? The members of the public that supported it? Who’s intent is relevent here? I will argue that it is illogical to conclude that the purpose of this legislation is improving public policy. The alleged problem that the legislation was supposed to fix is firms not helping relieve the burden of free health care. However there is no good public policy reason why they should, or given that they should that it should be through providing health insurance for their workers. Indeed it makes little sense to have a system where provision of free health care for the uninsured raises the premiums for the insured. The increase in premiums causes people who otherwise would have insured to not do so. This causes loss of profits from the insurance company, increasing costs for the State system and loss of benefits to the individual or family. The reduced numbers of insured and increased number of recipients of free care mean that less policyholders have to pay the costs of more uninsured, accelerating the process. If there were a genuine wish to make companies pay their “fair share” for providing free health care the State could introduce a sales tax, company tax etc. and use the proceeds to reduce the amount that free health care impacts on the insured. This would result in lower premiums, more policyholders and less aid recipients. The fact that this is not tried shows that the “fair share” law is actually an “unfair steal” law.

Why Achmed doesn't phone.

Torture is said to be neccesary to the "war on terror", as is locking suspects up for long periods without benefit of a trial or even a hearing. To be neccesary however a thing needs to be helpful to the purpose in question and obviously to be helpful it must not be counterproductive. So are such measures counterproductive? I believe they are, for they keep interogators from the one thing they need for a successful interogation. That is of course someone who knows something to reveal.

To understand why that is understand what starts most investigations off. While in the movies of course vigilant police and spies spot bad guys doing something bad and pursue, in fact this is fairly rare. In fact most cops don't come across a robbery or murder EVER in their careers. Almost all criminal and anti-terrorism investigation starts with someone in the public telling the police of something suspicious. Now obviously most of the people that give such information have some relationship the suspect. After all how else do they know of the things they find suspicious? They might be relatives, neighbours, friends, coworkers or even lovers. They will therefore have a natural sympathy for the suspect, as they have some relationship to him. They obviously don't want to have him sent away for two weeks on nothing but a suspicion, or tortured or otherwise subjected to humiliation, pain or loss of liberty. If the alternatives are these or letting him continue with suspicious behaviour they will tend to do the latter. There is always a plausible explanation for suspicious behaviour. The man buying diesel fuel might have a friend with a tractor or an emergency generator. He might be buying fertiliser for his back garden etc. The potential informant will make his excuses for not acting. Over 90% of the time these excuses willl be right. Far more people buy diesel feul to feul things than to blow things but. Most for Capability Brown purposes not Guy Faux purposes. But a tiny percentage of the time the suspicions will be right. Those that suspect but not enough to potentially subject their friend to torture will end up saying "I shoulda..." which is no help to the widows of their brothers victims.

This is not their fault though. Most would gladly have reported their suspicious if the result would have been a civilised investigation that didn't torture the suspect or ruin their life by "disappearing" them for a fortnight and not letting them tell people where they are. The fault for the lack of information is the government's for substituting brute force and illegality for allowing the community to trust them. This effect is even more powerful if no one person has enough information to trigger an investigation. If Achmed knows that Mohammed, his coworker, is do something alarming, and his sister Fatima knows something else susicipious, and his neighbour is aware of a third suspicious thing, it might take all three pieces of information to justify an interview, search etc. that would avoid catastrophe. So the probability of preventing it is a power in this case 3 of the probability that each person would report him. This second probability will go down sharply with each increase in arbitary power the suspect is subject to and thus the first probability will go down even faster.

Violating the rights of the accused only serves to reduce the number of people who will be accused, save by people who bear them ill-will. Accusations based on honest suspicion of a person's actions, the only reliable guide to possible wrongdoing, will decline. This is a blow at the heart of our ability to conduct the War on Terror.

The defence of neccesity.

So George Bush has been using the NSA to spy on Americans. This is shocking but not exactly surprising, and so is his justification for it. He claims that it's his duty to do what is necessary to protect Americans from terrorism. But is it and is that what he's doing? It stands to reason that no job can impose a duty that exceeds it's authority. Nobody can be given a responsibility to do what they are forbidden to do. If they were they would be in a position where there was no legally acceptable choice and that's a mockery of law. So clearly since warrantless wiretaps are not allowed the president cannot have a duty to authorise them.

But what of the other claim, that he is doing what is neccesary to protect American's from terrorism? I submit that not only is this claim false but it can be proven so from publically available sources. Firstly if he was doing what was necessary to protect against terrorism he would obviously move against their main source of funding, the War On (Some) Drugs. It has been well known for years that Islamic terror groups finance themselves through drugs. This is true not just of al-Quaeda affiliates but also the PLO and Hezbollah. Non-islamic terrorists in South America are so involved in the drug trade it's hard to tell whether some are political terrorists financing themselves with drugs or drug dealers who use to terrorism to bolster their justification of being political groups. Clearly if the war on drugs was ended this would be a major blow to terrorism worldwide, yet it is not. Why? It's not like Americans aren't prepared to make political sacrifices to win the WO(S)T*. Sure some will bleat a bit and predict the world will come to an end if people get high with a different chemical than usual. However all GWB would have to do is say something about how 9-ll "changed everything" and how this is essential to preserving the lives of our brave men and women overseas yadda, yadda and it would fly. So why the reluctance?

The answer lies in what GWB believes is "necessary". It is not necessary to actually minimise violent deaths by terrorist action. Although this would be nice it's not a critical objective. To be fair I feel the same way, there are plenty of other problems that kill more people and cause more suffering than terrorism and it's rightfully a low priority for the government. What is "necessary" is to preserve the belief that the State is the answer to the problem of terrorism. If people were to come to the conclusion that terrorism is best dealt with via non-State action they might come to the conclusion that most other things are too. This would lead to a gradual unravelling of the entire concept that most of what the State does is beneficial.

This would pretty much end the gravy train for Georgie-boy. While most people would say that this would deprive him of an undeserved income this is not the important thing. It would deprive him of an undeserved social respect and respectability. At the moment people assume that people in government are both good and important. They may quibble with the occasional emphasis, like thinking the Bill Clinton is Satan's spawn because he only spends 20 times what America needs to defend itself instead of 100 times, but generally they are impressed with the government appartachiks, politicians and technocrats. They do not regard them as they do say, drug dealers, prostitutes and purveyors of phony baldness cures. If the actual effectiveness of government were to become known then people might think of them as much less. Imagine if for years you went to a doctor that believed in bleeding and vomiting his patients for all ills and perscibed lambs blood intravenously for violent mood swings. How would you feel about him after you found out that his treatments all did serious harm to the patients health and had no beneficial effects**? This is exactly the sort of reaction that the architects and builders of government efforts hope to avoid.

To prevent this it's not only "neccesary" to avoid the apperance that no government intervention is the answer. It's also "neccesary" to avoid the appearance that _less_ government intervention might be the answer. If people began to think the the government intervening less might help solve terrorism they would apply pressure to achieve this. Eventually this pressure would result in some limited reduction in some government interference with people's lives. This would likely be successful in reducing terrorism, at least to some extent. Once one positive of reform is found people will push for others. Eventually the whole edifice would dissolve.

Another reason to make sure that no reduced intervention solutions (RIS) are tried is that the government has presented it's increased intervention solutions (IIS) as necessary which they are not if there exist RISs. Since the IISs are very unpopular in certain circles the government cannot afford to have the made to look unneccesary. People are prepared to forgive the problems caused by IISs if there is no alternative, so no alternative must be found. This explains why "crises" always increase government power, because to reduce it would be to admit that the government has been submitting people to needless bother with the previous IISs. For instance suppose there was a wave of terror bombings in the UK that the police had no idea was going to happen. Now suppose someone were to suggest an end to preventive detention under laws designed to fight the IRA. The reasoning is that without the fear that their friends and relatives would be locked up without a fair trial people would be more likely to come forward with information against them. This leads to more good leads and police possibly catching the terrorists before they can strike. The government would not do this because then they'd have to admit that they locked people up unfairly not only without a good reason but without a good result. So instead a solution that increases intervention would be suggested and been implemented, and it has.

The object of the State is not in fact to do what is necessary but to make necessary thing that would otherwise not be. For instance it would not be "necessary" to conduct the WO(S)T* if the policies of various governments didn't give people reasons to try change that policy and good reason to doubt that anything but violence would do that. The State is not there to find solutions to but to avoid the solutions that would have occured without it. Without Social Security people would look after their parents, invest for their retirement or otherwise take care of the entirely predictable problem of old age. Without unemployment benefits workers would either look after each other or accept lower wages to retain employment. Without government protection people would form alliances with their neighbours to defend their persons and property. All these are what the State is designed to avoid. If such solutions take off anyone with a connection to the State will see the value of their work degraded by the comparative efficiency of these solutions. Eventually their work will be a social and even economic negative. This is what government find "necessary" to avoid.


* War On (Some) Terror
** Other calming the lamb's blood recipient by making him so sick he can't be violent.

Ways to abuse the new Australian Terror legislation, or just abuse New Australians.

Well according to Media Watch the attorney general's staff, believe that "These offences are not designed to prevent journalists from reporting in good faith.". That's great, and guns are not designed to go off accidentally and blow the users head off, but they do. So rather than consider what the new "anti-terror" laws are supposed designed to do, let's look at what they can do. Rather than consider what a government of saints would use them for let's look at what they might do in the hands of rather more human governors, to journalists who "report in good faith" or indeed to anyone else.
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/B05PG201_v281.pdf

The following restrictions and requirements can be implemented under section 104.4, without a trial, subject only to a judge being satisfied that "on the balance of probabilities" that the restriction "is reasonably neccesary" to prevent a terrorist act, this judgement being made solely on the basis of what the police and the AG tell the court, without the person being informed beforehand of the possibility of restrictions and without his lawyer being able to challenge these restrictions until after the judgement is made:

Fingerprint the suspect, despite the fact that clearly there is not enough evidence to arrest him or get a warrant for his fingerprints (if there was why would they police need to use the new powers?). There doesn't seem to be any mechanism for the destruction of the fingerprints once they're in the system, so presumably the cops keep them. Your fingerprints "must only be used for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the order" as though you wouldn't wear gloves when you violated it after getting your prints taken. It's good to know that the cops won't use my fingerprints to, say figure out whether I touched the gun that killed somebody, even if they think I did it. It's also good to know that Santa Claus is bringing lots of presents for being a good boy, and it's about as credible. Even assuming the cops don't use your prints on the sly (and consider we're talking New South Wales cops here, amoung others) does anyone really believe that in a year's time they won't amend this so that the cops can use the prints any way they like? After all you've got the prints right there, why bother the courts with another application since we know he's someone who might contribute to a terrorist act, maybe.

Require that a person remain at "specified premises" between specified times of the day, or on specified days. In other words they can be subject to weekend (or weekday) detention without trial. Alternatively they could be required to stay in specified premises for 23 1/2 hours a day. The "premises" could be anywhere. It doesn't even say they have to be in Australia. Hello Guantanamo. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things" like getting sent to my room without any opportunity to give a defence.

Require that a person wear a tracking device. 'Nuff said.

Prohibit or restrict a person from "accessing or using specified forms of telecommunication", that's right your phone priveleges have been revoked. I'm feeling more and more like a teenager unjustly accused of necking with the neighbour girl with each subsection. So be a good boy, give the cops what they want, sell out who they want you to sell out, tell the lies they want you to tell, and maybe they'll let you ring your dying mother. Or maybe not. Don't fuck with the fuzz, punk. And don't try competing for someone's affections with a cop. He can shut you down faster than the SEC in Martha Stewart's kitchen. You can't neccesarily call your lawyer, but you can get in touch with him by other means, just not "specified forms of telecommunication" like the internet, mail, carrier-fucking pigeon. Well that's is to say you can get in touch with _a_ lawyer. Not neccesarily your lawyer or anyone you know with a law degree. See below.

You see they can prohibit you talking to or communicating with "specified individuals" including your lawyer, even if there is no evidence that any of these individuals ever committed, planned, funded, planed to fund or in any way contributed to a terrorist act. Of course the order must "state that the person's lawyer may attend a specified place in order to obtain a copy". That specified place could theorectically be the North Pole, the dark side of the moon or perhaps we're back to Guantanamo Bay again. I don't know where a lawyer can get the order but I know where any good one will want to stick it. In between the time you recieve the order and the time your lawyer gets to where he can get his copy presumably he has to let you rot. There's no guarantee that where they send you will be any easier to get to than where the order is lying patiently for his arrival. Nor is there any requirement for the court to actually send the letter to him let alone in a timely manner.

All this might get you down, so perhaps you should bury yourself in your work. If they let you. You see they can prohibit you from "carrying out specified activities" including those you usually use to earn a living. I'm betting after a few times when you can't do your job for a week your employer will let you go. Of course that's assuming they don't just call up missing persons after you're forbidden from going to your workplace in the first place or calling the boss.

After all this you might want to talk to somebody, a consellor, phychiatrist maybe?
Well they can make a person do that, "if a person consents"? Well if it's a requirement (and that's what they call it) how can there be an opportunity to refuse consent? This one's past my above average abilities at reason. They're logic is not like our earth logic, it's more advanced (thank you Joss Whedon for that one).

I think I've shown that despite it not being "designed" for such purposes this new law can fuck up your life something chronic on no evidence that would stand up to even a mediocre lawyers challenge. They don't need enough evidence to charge you. They don't need to show that you ever did anything bad. All they need is to be satisfied on "the balance of probabilities". One day you'll look back and remember when we were a free country, and only civil matters were decided that way.

I could write on sections other than 104.4 but I can't be bothered. That chunk of obesenity allone is more than enough to justify... well I was going to say something dramatic and revolutionary, but I don't want to spend 7 years inside or whatever it says. This legislation is loaded with ways to abuse the people for the greater glory of the government, and the AG's plan is that when they do he'll swear he didn't know they were loaded. This is makes him a very bad Attorney General if he's lying, and an abominable one if he's telling the truth.

The government acts in our interest.

Well it's there in black and white, in the Herald no less (SMH 4/10/2005), "National ID system in pipeline to prevent repeat of Rau case". Thank god. All this time I feared a national ID system would be put in place to help infringe our civil liberties but now it's being proposed to prevent a repeat of the Rau case. For those of you that either aren't Australian or have been hiding under a rock for months the Rau case involved the deportation of Cornelia Rau from Australia as an illegal immigrant although she was a legal permanent resident. Throughout the affair DIMIA (the Department of Immigration, and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, because of course being here 40 minutes and being here 40,000 years* are pretty much the same thing) acted without a hint of concern for Ms. Rau's welfare. They ignored evidence that she was mentally ill, a fact obvious to everyone but government employees and/or contractors. They made no effort to establish her true identity, merely taking the word of an obviously disturbed woman. Clearly some change is needed to prevent the stress, worry and emotional damage to Ms. Rau and her family (who had no idea where she was and suspected she might be dead in a ditch somewhere). I left this blog entry for a while and in the meantime there are reports that people were held illegally by DIMIA for SEVEN YEARS. Christ even most of the Guantanamo Bay guys will have gotten out by then.

Now if DIMIA was a private organisation they would (in between court appearances for their numerous acts of bastardry) not have acted in the humane and generous way they now propose to act. Because government cares and private businesses do not. No, private businesses are cruel and heartless and would have only pasted the phone and fax number of the police missing persons bureau on the phone and fax and made damn sure that it's employees actually checked that their detainees were illegal immigrants rather than missing persons, lest they get sued off the face of the earth. They would have only done their job in the least costly way possible consistent with getting it done.

But not our DIMIA, no they want to set up a massive and intrusive database system that doubtless be extended over the years in ways that the present ministers swear it will not be used in. All this will of course cost a fortune, which will be spent because, I repeat, the government cares. They have our interests at heart. They are concerned with our welfare. Good on you John Howard for caring enough to violate my privacy and make me feel a little less of a free man, or a man at all, with every action you and your government take.


* Low esimate.

The unspeakable oath.

"We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
No you don't. You're a child without the right or ability to pledge allegiance. Allegiance to a flag is a promise to enter into military conflict on it's behalf should that be neccesary. It is not as Barbara Dietrich pretends in http://www.jaredstory.com/pledge.html a promise "to be a good friend.". This might be it's meaning in a social context. We are however talking about a political context because the pledge is to a flag. In a political context allegiance means exactly that. It means that if the entity you pledged allegiance to is in a fight then you have to join in. No ifs, ands or buts. That's what it means, a promise to murder the State's enermies, regardless of wether said enemies are acting against you or even in a way you admire and/or benefit from. To require children to do this is both impractical and horrifyingly immoral. Does anyone believe that any of the 12 years olds that are forced to recite this pledge would make effective killers? Does anyone doubt they'd be dosed to the eyeballs with Ritalin if they showed any sign they would be?*
In addition to being stupid it's also rubbish as an oath. No judge would hold a child liable for a contract to buy a car, rent a house or procure the services of a prostitute, but the State wants them to swear to kill somebody. Why would anyone wish someone to swear an oath they did not expect to keep? At least not until they become adults.
When they mature this puts the swearer in a strange situation. If they've sworn as a child do they publically renounce their oath? If they do they face official suspicion and the condemnation of their neighbours. If they do not they are faced with the official and public presumption that they intend to keep the oath. But the oath was non-binding and obliges them to do things that may be against their conscience. On the other hand it is also (hopefully) against their conscience to go against their sworn oath. Either way they are forced to do something that they feel morally uncomfortable with.
Nor is this solely a problem with people who reject military service in general or a specific conflict in particular. By extracting the oath before their majority the State has removed from people the ability to make the committment when they are morally capable of doing so. Like someone forced to pay $100 to relieve the victims of Hurricane Katrina they no longer have the option to do so by their own free will.
Many people praise the oath on the grounds that it is a promise to do something that is noble and good. If that were so why extract such a promise before it can be legitimately made? If the cause is worth defending why not rely on the free will of the nation's citizens to defend it? If a cause does not to attract enough volunteers to defend it then might it be a bad cause to begin with? If it is a good cause and it does not attract enough volunteers to defend it is that not a sign the nation is doomed anyway? Either way a good cause doesn't need or cannot use the forced extraction of oaths, forced by violence or by preying on the vulnerability of children.
Even if the cause in which children swore was good it would still not be good to make them swear to do so. A child by definition doesn't have the capacity to swear binding oaths. They are not mature enough to realise the consequences of their actions. If someone told you that a six year old sold one of their kidneys for a years supply of ice-cream and chocolate you'd be horrified. You would think (rightly) that an adult took advantage of a child's ignorance and shortsightedness in an immoral fashion. So much more so for a child that sells his whole life potentially in this oath of "allegiance", for nothing more than a teacher's approval. Moral adults (by which I mean those whose morals have achieved maturity and also adults who are moral) don't trick children into making promises.
Now on to the practical aspects of taking the oath. A child of Ayn Rand (spiritiually of course) might ask "What's in it for me?". Only a fool gives their alliegance without something in return. But the State gives nothing to these children. Not even a promise they don't intend to keep. A medieval lord, arrogant in his power and ruthless in it's exercise, would not dare to make someone swear allegiance without offering protection in return. A vassal's oath was always accompanied by a lord's. Each promised to protect the other. But the State promises nothing. It's not "selfish" to insist on something from the State in response to the State getting you to swear to commit the most foul murders and take the greatest risks. It's entirely reasonable and neccesary if you are to look to your families interest. Most people regard looking to such interest as not only morally allowable but morally imperative. If you die in a foreign field that will be forever (fill in nation) without getting some benefit for your family to compensate for the risk and/or loss then you've let done your kin and should be ashamed.
Then there's the obscene assertion "one nation, indivisible". It is self-evident crap. A nation is made up of people associated, and what is formed by agreement can be disolved by agreement. This is obvious legally and morally because each member has the right of self-ownership. This right includes the right to leave associations subject only to the insistance of others that you keep contracts. If each self-owner withdraws his insistance the association has nothing left in it that can legally or morally compel you to stay. Of course the United States was not actually formed by agreement. So much the better for my argument, for to argue that those forced into an association can't leave it but those who chose it can is rediculous. Those forced into an association have all the rights to leave of willing participants, and more. If the "form of government" becomes a hinderance rather than a help to exercising your rights you have every right to abolish it. If you do not then the United States of America ought not to exist and pledging to it is both wrong and futile. If the "form" of the government is that it stretches over a large geographical area and that makes it harder to exercise your rights you are just as right to break it up into a number of smaller governments as you are to change anything else about it.
The pledge of alligance is not a morally uplifting and harmless exercise. It is a deceptively gained promise to defend regardless of the worth of that being defended. A promise to violate the rights of one's fellow citizens to seccession. A promise to do so in causes you have no idea you might have to support and which would horrify you if you did. It's wrong to do this to your children.


* Not that that would neccesarily hinder them in becoming such.
http://add.about.com/health/add/library/weekly/aa052599.htm
http://www.drugawareness.org/washtimes.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/april99/antisocial04299.htm

Security and why to reject it.

We are often told that various government actions, laws, policies etc. are neccesary for security. Whenever this justification is heard it's a signal that the proposed action is morally wrong and probably counterproductive. This essay explains why.
When a policy is justified on the grounds that it will deliver a tangible benefit, e.g. better phone service for the bush, greater economic egalitarianism, better education, reduced budget deficiets, the outcome can be judged. It's not always easy to do so but it's always potentially possible. "Security" however consists of things not happening that might not happen anyway. The difference between an excellent security system that is never challenged and a horrible one that is never challenged is almost impossible to detect. A consequence of this is that changes that increase security and decrease it are almost indistinguishable. Therefore each change in policy for "security" must simulate visible significantly increased security. This means that the changes must be dramatic and even radical even when the actual solution is inconspicuous and incremental. In addition because of the difficulty of identifying changes that increase security a lot of changes bad for security have been passed. To avoid these changes being seen as bad for security any further changes must be in the same direction, even if that is the wrong direction.
But security laws always seem to decrease freeedom. This is not explained by the above rationales. If new laws to increase security have to be dramatic and highly visible, why can't they be dramatically and visibly pro-freedom? The reason is simple, every security law needs not just a justification of it's existance but a justification of it's timing. Why wasn't the law passed before the horrible thing that made it apparently neccesary? Due to the fundamental nature of security in justifying the State the usual excuses (cost, difficulty of implementation, the previous government etc.) won't wash. Security is supposedly the primary reason why we have a State. It's not like prosperity or "freedom" an alleged side benefit, it's the main game. So to justify not previously bringing in these neccesary changes the government must find an artificial barrier, something that stopped them before but that they are gamely now trying to overcome. The most obvious scapegoats are "civil libertarians" by which they mean everyone who thinks that something less than absolute slavery is desireable. By opposing previous and proposed increases in government power they allow the government to point to them and say "We wanted to do the neccesary thing but were constrained by these namby-pamby weak on terrorist types.". They may even make the conflict seem internal; "I would have pushed through these neccesary laws but was contrained by civil liberty concerns", concerns that they now abandon when convenient.
Since every "security" law must be justified by a process like this every security" law is a blow against liberty. And a blow against liberty is in the end a
blow against security. Because only the free can have the information, the arms and the adaptability of action to ensure their own security. Only they will have the strength of character to protect themselves.

The compulsorary community.

This entry is a response to the Ross Gittins article "Let's not turn unis into shopping centres"

"Well we could start with the question of whether a university constitutes a 'community' with obligations to correct disadvantage for particular members - we could but we're not going to appearantly. In your entire article you don't provide a single iota of evidence that universities in general or in a particular case are, were or ought to be communities with such obligations. Since the implication they should is a large part of your article this ommission is either stupid or dishonest and you're not stupid. In fact there are several reasons why they shouldn't be.

1) Very few people in universities are related by blood, adoption or even marriage so one powerful aid to strong communities is missing.
2) Secondly universities have high turnover rates and thus few people with the ability to form long term relationships and trust neccessary for communities to function. It's true that relationships formed in university can last for decades and help form a community, but it's one that forms _outside_ the university.
3) Thirdly university students don't live in the same place thus making it harder to organise community events.
4) Universities have far more people in them than an individual could know. Even with an excellent memory and social skills one could have a moderately close relationship with only small percentage of the university staff and students.
5) Students already have large demands on their time and resources because they are heavily investing in human capital and thus have little left either to form a community or to provide for the "disadvantaged". Universities are supposed to encourage diversity because differing viewpoints are vital to developing new ideas and differing backgrounds help provide this. This diversity makes it harder to form relationships and agreements or get people to help each other since people are both more willing to and better at helping people like themselves. For agreements where diversity is sought the additional difficulty is a worthwhile expense. But I don't see any evidence that childcare is one of those, nor counselling. For I could not advise a Catholic who was having a crisis of faith, because I have no idea what a crisis of religious faith implies. I could learn but why should I when there are plenty of catholics who already know and are both willing and able to help? It's a bad use of resources even though the goal is worthwhile.
6) Universities are engaged in a complex task requiring specialist skills. Such tasks are usually best handled by organisations dedicated to those tasks alone to allow division of labour. This is not always the case but often. Pediatric Cardic units don't generally also perform earthquake relief.
7) The biggest argument against regarding universtities as being "communities" in your sense is the simpliest one, if they had to pay for it, people wouldn't do it. I;m not arguing that people won't provide counselling or child-care to the "disadvantaged" if given the choice, I'm arguing that they wouldn't do it through their universtity. Free market economics applies just as much to the production of communities as it does to the production of cheese, Nintendo machines, economics articles in the Sydney Morning Herald. If people want a community they are more than capable of constructing one without government coercion. Why it should suddenly be neccesary to give them free tertiary education to get them to do something they did for free for 5,000 years is beyond me. As is why a free counselling service availible only to students would have a comparative advantage over other free counselling services. Why discriminate on the basis of university entrance? From the point of view of "helping the disadvantaged" this doesn't make a lot of sense. The most in need of counselling are farmers and other people in professions with a high risk of suicide. It should be noted they are mostly male and university students mostly female. I don't say this is evidence of sexism in the provision of counselling services, but reading "The myth of male power" got me thinking in that direction.

You stated that "We happily define countries, states and council areas as communities and give them the power to tax.". Everything in that sentence is untrue. First of all I hate to speak for a minority I'm not a member of but "Who's we white man?". Before Australia was "defined as a community" there were plenty of people quite happily living in the communities they defined. They were far from happy with being included in the new institution without their foreknowledge or consent. By the way the institution is a nation-state not a community. There's an easy test, if a group is formed and maintained by violence then it's a State (capital s) if it's formed and maintained by consent it's a community. I would not be at all happy to define something as a State even if I had the opportunity (which neither I nor anyone I know ever will). Drawing a line on one side of which one group of thugs rules and on the other another is not work for which I have the talent or taste. Of course since the State was defined decades prior to my birth the point is moot. Then there's the phrase "give them the power to tax". It was given? That's strange I thought William the Bastard and his heirs and successors just took the damn thing. My memory of history is vague but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Consultation of Hastings in 1066.

You ask if what universities do is "all that different" from what employers do. It is. Employers don't do it with my money but with their own. Employers bear the economic consequences of their economic decisions. Universities bear the economy consequences of the governments political decisions. Students don't choose universities on the basis of the student union but on how good the taxpayer funded education is. In effect taxpayers who never set foot in the universtity subsidise student union activities over which they have zero democratic control. Students not taxpayers in general decide how much is spent on maintaining "campus life" but taxpayers fund the benefit sold below cost to provide it. If government wants to fund some bizare, amoral, wasteful, homicidal and/or counterproductive enterprise* I can vote against them next election (and that's the plan). I cannot do the same for student unions.

You argue for "Ramsey pricing" but that's not what universities are doing.
The claim that voluntary student unionism will push up costs assumes that, by some economic miracle unknown in the history of the science government policy hit on exactly the right economics of scale. We don't and can't know what the results of free choice are. If we could we'd have exploited it and be millionaires, until we tried to do it again and stuffed up. As for reducing the choices availible that's what all taxes do. The difference between what is seen and unseen is that while the decrease in choice due to tax is invisible in this context the choices provided by the tax are not. To assert that there is a net loss of positive externalities is simply to assume away theose that would arise from students persuing the same goals different ways. Why is it that only goals persued with other people's money are said to have positive externalities? The arguement "the market will always undersupply positive externailities" is irrevelent unless someone else will do a better job of supplying them. It's also hardly a proven point. Markets have plenty of ways of supplying positive externalities, for instance mutual societies, charities, social pressure, business sponsorship of sporting teams etc. To argue that the market "always" undersupplies them is brave. Want to bet I can find a case where they don't? It is the statists who have a primitive, reductionist economic theory that ignores how positive externalities operate. In any case if university administrators believed that funding such activities would provide more benefits to their students or attract more full fee payers they can continue to fund them out of general revenue. This opposed by students because they have little faith that the benefits really justify the cost.

The arguement that universtities ought to be centres of "informal" learning is perhaps the weakest argument for CSU. Everywhere ought to be a centre for infromal learning, that doesn''t mean that taking money from another accomplishes that goal. In fact the net effect of subsiding such activiteis is to take away time (from people who have to workharder to pay taxes ) and people who are interested in these activities from the non-university sector. These are the two things most needed for informal learning. You haven't shown any increase in "informal learning" merely a transfer of such learning from most people to university students.

This explains why so many are fighting so that government by the uni students, of the uni students, for the uni students shall not perish from this land. It's an elitist fantasy that what is good for the chosen few benefit all. It's another that only people with degrees have something to contribute. Centreing the informal learning in university student societies feeds both myths and they feed it and all feed an elitist and centralist agenda. It is no coincidence that student societies are generally pro-centralisation. Even the so called "free market" advocates are the sort that suggest a freer market can best achieve government goals. Ironically however if I were to believe your contentions that a) university students gain most from extraciricula activities and b) most won't fund them I would have to believe they were kinda thick. Which demolishes the idea that it's a good thing to spend money teaching them anything. I do not believe that this is true (in general).

Of course the idea that we should thank CSU for all the poiticians, activists and sports stars depends on their services being worth of thanks. In the case of sports stars (you thought I was going for politicians didn't you?) I say it sin't. National sporting success creates national unity and identity, very bad and dangerous things. A collection of honest rational people is neither identical nor unified. Such qualities are only useful to tie us all to the same yoke. If you truly love your country you must prey for the defeat of it's athletes not just it's soldiers. If however you just like your sport then arranging sponsorship is (as I said previously) not hard.

The results of newspapermen being disproportionately from universities might be even more dangerous. Diversity of opinon is vital to democracy, so how many of these student editors or journos will come out for VSU? Or anything that tends to undermine the power of universities? Please don't misunderstand me, I suggest no conspiracy. I just think they (you) will act to secure that which helped them (you) , thinking that since it helped them it is generally helpful. It is impossible to know if it is without knowing what use would have been made of resources if they didn't go to universities. That which is seen and unseen agains comes into view.
The same thing that I've said about journos goes for actiivists and politicians too. Having them disproportionately come from taxpayer funded institutions distorts the debate on those institutions and probably all other taxpayer funded institutions as well.

There is a myth invented by arrogant thugs to perpetuate their rule that communities needs government help. In fact it's not even clear they need a government to exist. The ide athat the individualist philosophy is a threat to community ignores the fact that individuals created the communities in the first place for individualistic purposes. What these purposes is hazy, varied and diverse, but they had goals best satsified by the creation of a community so they made one. Groups formed by government don't tend to become communities to any great extent. Walk through a housing estate if you doubt me. To limit individual freedom for the sake of the community is self-defeating because the community interest is only a collection of private itnerests so limiting the freedom of members arbitrarily cannot serve it. It is of course possible for a net benefit to arise out of some limitations (e.g. prohibitions on alcohol in muslim communities or "dry camps", prohibitions on having girlfriends in a monastry). There is no reason to expect that government or other outside planners are better at spotting such opportunites than the community members themselves. They certainly has less motive to do so. The free market is better at creating communities just like it's better at creating for-profit firms, and for the same reason. We are better at judging our own interests than government.

* I am not refering here to the war in Iraq. Why would you think I was?