Cyprus - Why No One Should be Surprised

It was pleasing to see the Cypriot people rise up against the government and reject the European Community's theft of a significant part of their bank savings.   At the time of writing the Cypriot government has rejected the plan.

The European Community had proposed to bail out Cypriot banks to the tune of €10 billion in return for the Cypriot government seizing 6.75% of Cypriots' bank deposits up to €100,000 and 9.9% of deposits over €100,000. The Cypriot people rightly saw this as bank robbery and took to the streets in protest.  Amusingly, the proposal has been listed on Wikipedia as one of the greatest bank robberies of all time.

The global reaction to this has been interesting.  It is seen as a step too far in governments' looting of private property, although I am not sure why this should be the case given that governments all around the world have wealth taxes, some of which are far more rapacious than was being proposed here.  I suppose it is the blatant nature of the theft that has provoked the reaction. 

In some ways, we should have limited sympathy for the Cypriots.  If you want the European Community to bail out your banks – in other words, if you want German taxpayers to stump up the money – you can hardly complain if they demand a contribution from you. The real issue here is not the pilfering of Cypriot bank accounts by the European Community but whether the EC should be bailing out banks at all. Governments around the world have been throwing money at banking sector since the global financial crisis hit in 2008 and it hasn't stemmed the rot.  Private profits, public losses, seems to be the policy of governments towards the banking sector all over the world.

The Cypriot situation, if it has one benefit, has woken people around the world to the fact that governments can use force to do anything they want if they are not constrained. Once you accept the power of the government to take whatever it likes in taxes, then you shouldn't be surprised when it starts taking your bank account, your house and your business.  As the millionaire said to the attractive young woman, "we've established the principle, now we're just arguing over the price."

Why is it Acceptable to Promote Marxism in Our Schools?

Last week my daughter arrived home from her Wellington college and told me that her English teacher had been proselytizing Marxism under the guise of a critical analysis of the movie Lost in Translation. For those of you who have not seen the movie, Bill Murray plays a middle-aged travelling salesmen in Tokyo who has a largely platonic relationship with a young woman, played by Scarlett Johansson. The teacher said that the theme of the movie was alienation in the large modern city. Whether it is or not, is debatable. Personally, I don't think that's what the film is about at all.  In fact, I think it's about the opposite - the ability of people to find connections in love even in a city as big as Tokyo. However, that is beside the point because the teacher did not stop there. He went on to say that the only solution to this problem of alienation was Marxism. He returned to the theme on the following day and spent the entire English period promoting his Marxist philosophy.

My daughter was easily able to discount his facile arguments in favour of Marxism and she highlighted to the class the obvious flaws in his arguments, including the fact that wherever it has been tried, Marxism leads to genocide (I guess you could call that "severe alienation"). Unfortunately, many of my daughter's classmates were not so critical in their thinking and the majority seem to accept the teacher's arguments.

I do not have a problem with students studying Marxism as part of a broader analysis of political theories, but remember this was an English class. The promotion of Marxism was not, as far as I can tell, part of the standard English curriculum for Year 12 students. The teacher was simply using his position of power to indoctrinate young minds into his evil philosophy.  And let's make no bones about it, Marxism is an evil philosophy. It was responsible for the death of more than 100 million people in the 20th century, far more than that other derivation of socialist/collectivist thought – Fascism, and it is still being used as a justification for the murder of thousands of people around the world in places like North Korea.

Imagine the outcry if the New Zealand secondary school English teacher was promoting Nazism is a valid response to so-called alienation. Why is it acceptable for a teacher to promote an equally detestable political philosophy in our classrooms?

National Socialists are Socialists

This week a UK "crime commissioner" (I understand that this is a civilian who oversees the police, not someone who commissions crime) named Dr Rachel Frosh was forced to resign for equating Socialists with National Socialists after an outcry from people on the political left.  Her posting on Twitter can be seen here.

The reaction to this is wrong on so many levels.  

Firstly, it is incredibly hypocritical.  How often do you read and hear comments from the political left-wing comparing the beliefs of their political opposites with Nazism?  What is good for the goose is surely OK for the gander.

Secondly, it is not offensive to equate one political philosophy with another.  Frosh did not say any individual was a Nazi; she didn't even equate a political party with Nazism (unlike the original post that hers was in response to, which said the British National Party members were Nazis).

Thirdly, the comparison is correct.  National Socialists were, first and foremost, Socialists.  Hitler was at pains to point out, as the quote in Frosh's posting states, "We are Socialists."  Why else would he have called his party the National Socialist Workers Party?  Nazis believed they represented the workers against the oppression, just like all other Socialists.  Nazis made scapegoats of those they saw as oppressors (the Jews mainly) just like other Socialists (who scapegoat capitalists and the bourgeoisie).

The most important common factor is that both regular Socialists and National Socialists believe the individual must be subjugated to the interests of the collective.  They differ only in their definition of the collective - Nazis believe the important collective is the race and the state, Socialists the proletariat.  Once you accept that the interests of the individual can be sacrificed for that of the collective, however you choose to define it, you legitimize any act against any individual that stands in the way of collective. Socialists and National Socialists agree on the principle, just not the definition of the collective's interests and the means to pursue them.  They both believe that a political elite should define those interests.

This issue raises the question of the popular terms used to define political beliefs in the world today.  "Left wing" and "right wing" are not different ends of a political spectrum.  Nazism and Socialism occupy the same philosophical territory.  The other end of the spectrum is not some other variation of these philosophies, it is the belief that the rights of the individual are paramount and the only moral basis for political action is to protect those rights.  This is the philosophy that has found expression down through the ages via Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and has found its fullest expression in the writings of Ayn Rand.

The Demise of Objective Journalism?

In his blog post this week, Kiwi journalist Karl du Fresne laments the loss of an objective viewpoint in the mainstream media.  In particular, he comments on the obvious bias of New Zealand television current affairs presenter John Campbell. Personally, I don't watch John Campbell and haven't done so since the 2005 election campaign in which he was so one-sided in his coverage (in favour of the left-of-centre Labour Party and its leader, Prime Minister Helen Clark, and against the right-of-centre National Party) that his broadcasts resembled the party political advertisements that were being run between the programme segments rather than a current affairs show.  However, I commented on du Fresne's blog that I did not agree with him that journalists had some sort of moral obligation to be unbiased.  If someone like John Campbell wants to push his personal political views, then those like myself who don't agree with him can turn his programme off. Fortunately, in most Western countries at least, we are not yet in the position where we are forced to watch such biased opinion masquerading as informed commentary.  Don't get me wrong, I think Campbell abuses the trust that the viewing public and the channels owners are placing in him and should be sacked, but the reason it doesn't bother me is that I know he and his kind are doomed.

The mainstream media in most Western countries is becoming increasingly fragmented and traditional newspaper, television and radio outlets are becoming uncompetitive and unprofitable.  The reason for this is, of course, the huge growth of online media such as news websites, blogs, and instant message feeds.  I get most of my news from online sources. I no longer subscribe to a major daily print newspaper and rarely watch or listen to television and radio news. On my iPad I have the dozens of feeds from media outlets all over the world, all funneled through some very smart software applications that know what I am interested in and enjoy reading and watching.  Many of my sources of news and commentary are individuals or very small businesses rather the traditional large corporate and government media outlets that dominate the mainstream media.  I often get the news unfiltered, in real-time from people on the ground in New York, Moscow, Benghazi or Harare and I get a much broader and better informed range of opinions than I ever got from New Zealand's television networks, radio channels and daily newspapers.  I know that I am immensely better informed and have access to a much broader range of editorial comment than I ever was when I relied on traditional print and broadcast media.

The new on-line media allow me to be far more selective and far more precise about my sources of news.  They allow me to pick and choose from a broad smorgasbord of information rather than having to take the set menu that the likes of TV3 (the New Zealand television channel that employs John Campbell) serves up each night. I am not alone – every other informed consumer of news I know has made the transition (but perhaps not as completely as I have) to online sources.

The only reason the likes of John Campbell survive is because they are part of the set fare that New Zealand network television viewers are forced to consume each night.  But it is only a matter of time before almost all video, including news and current affairs, is watched on the Internet rather than on broadcast TV.  Viewers and advertisers will be much more selective about the content they consume and pay for.  I cannot imagine that anyone in this new world will want to pay to hear the ill-informed, petty and highly-biased comments of a silly New Zealand current affairs presenter.  Can you? 

The Coming Fight for Freedom

Since the 2012 US election I have seen a great deal of pessimism amongst bloggers and commentators about the prospects for individual freedom in the Western world. It seems that the re-election of Barack Obama and the left-wing political victories in France, Greece and other countries are seen as the turning of the tide against classical liberalism in favour of state control and the abrogation of individual rights.

I agree with these commentators that there is little prospect of rational, classical liberal governments being elected in New Zealand or other Western nations over the next few years. Voters have made their choice clear – they want to continue deluding themselves that the welfare pot is forever full and that government interference in every aspect of society and the economy will always guarantee them a better life.

It is clear that it will take something more than a prolonged global economic downturn and the increasing erosion of individual liberties for voters around the world to get the message. No one seriously believes that the economic policies of most Western governments are sustainable beyond another few years and the signs are that severe social disruption is becoming more common in most Western nations the longer the global economic downturn continues.

The end game is now starting to be played out and unfortunately it is not going to be possible for anyone to opt out, any more than it was possible to opt out of the same philosophical fight in the 1930s and 40s. Political demarcations are becoming more pronounced and positions more entrenched. You would have to be a very optimistic person with little sense of history to look at the current situation around the world and believe that it is not going to result in a great deal of bloodshed.  If you think I am being crazy, then ask yourself why the US Department of Homeland Security (whose sole responsibility is domestic security) has recently purchased more than 1.2 billion sniper bullets. Clearly, I am not the only one who is anticipating a significant outbreak of violence in the West.

However, I disagree that the prospects for freedom are all bleak. History teaches us that greater freedom prevails over the long term. I believe that current events are unfolding so quickly that the collapse of the West and the real fight against tyranny are more imminent than most realise. I am sure that in 1940 few people thought they would see the defeat of Fascism in their lifetimes and in the 1980s few Russians would have believed they would see the end of Communism.

Thomas Jefferson said, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Freedom is not lost unless we are not prepared to fight for it.

The Right to Bear Arms

I've read much in the last few days about the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms and how this should be limited in view of the terrible events at Newtown, Connecticut.  I am as appalled as anyone about the shooting of teachers and schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary School (see the post below) but I think much of the comment about gun control in the US is poorly informed.  It is important to understand why Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms when considering whether and how to further restrict their ownership and use.

The right to bear arms is contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The words, in the final version ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, are as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment made it into the Bill of Rights along with the right to freedom of speech and religion (the 1st Amendment), protection from unreasonable search and seizure (4th) and due process under the law (5th).  Why it is there amongst other unquestionably moral rights is an interesting story.

In 1789 when the Bill of Rights was being written, the United States was a brand new country that had only recently defeated the British in the War of Independence and adopted the US Constitution.  There were concerns that the Federal government would become too powerful and abrogate the rights of the States and the people, in the same way as the British Crown and Parliament had done before the Revolution.  Congress was divided between the Federalists, who believed that there should be a strong federal government, and the Republicans, who believed in a small federal government that was effectively subservient to the States.

The United States did not have a standing army until 1789.  The Continental Army that was led to victory in the War of Independence by George Washington comprised the militias of the thirteen states and was disbanded upon the final defeat of the British at Yorktown except for a small general staff of no more than a few hundred soldiers.

By the time the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 there had been both external and internal challenges to the unity of the United States.  The risk of renewed war with Great Britain and with revolutionary France, plus the internal Whisky Rebellion and Northwest Indian War, meant many in Congress supported the idea of a strong, standing Federal army.  But in order to garner the supermajority of States needed to pass the Constitutional amendments, those promoting the idea had to offer the States something in return.  That something was the right to bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment was the right demanded by the States to ensure the Federal Government would not be able to use its armed forces to tread upon their rights.  Of course one could say the assurance did not work - after all, the American Civil War was primarily about that same issue: whether the Federal Government had the right to over ride the States on the important issue of slavery.  And in that case it was a very good thing that the Federal Government won.

Today the issue of Federal vs States rights is more salient than ever.  Washington DC and the state capitols are arguing over many important issues - drug enforcement, immigration, health care, etc.  The Federal Government has taken upon itself more and more power, including in recent years the power to torture and kill people without any form of judicial process.  Many Americans think their government has well-overstepped the constraints that the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison intended to impose upon it and in view of this, it is understandable that they would be reluctant to give up the right to bear arms.

Seen in this light, the Second Amendment becomes something more noble and reasonable than merely the right of Americans to defend their person and home against criminals (although that, too, is hardly an ignoble right in my opinion).

All of the above doesn't change the fact that American civilians kill far more of their fellow citizens with firearms than any other country on Earth.  I agree that America needs to debate the issue but I don't think stricter firearms control alone will do much to address the problem (after all, New Zealand has some of the strictest firearms ownership laws in the world and we have had our share of mass killings).  If President Obama wants to introduce tougher gun laws, perhaps he should start talking in the same conversation about limiting the unbridled power of his Government - then more Americans might be more receptive to greater gun control.

Victoria Soto - Hero

In previous posts, I have lamented the lack of heroism in the world today.

In this blog, following the example of Not PC, I would like to post a tribute to a real heroine - Victoria Soto, one of the teachers who gave their lives to save the lives of the children in their care from the despicable coward who committed suicide by mass killing in Newtown, Connecticut.

I will remember Victoria Soto.  I will not remember her killer.