Voting.

Well, election time is coming up again and we have to brace ourselves for a barrage of advertising of the ‘virtues of various candidates’ and of course their parties. We will be told of all of the wonderful things they will do for us, but will probably be less forthcoming on what they will do to us.

Interspersed among these in Australia will of course be some by the Electoral Commission warning us that voting is compulsory and that failure to do so, will incur fines.

Yes folks, in this great democracy of ours the right to vote has been taken away and replaced with a compulsion to vote. The reason I say that the right to vote has been removed is that a right is something that the individual can choose to do or not do as free will decides. I have the right to drink, but if I do not choose to do so I don’t.

No publican has the right to lay criminal charges, or sue me for failing to do so. Some of them may have a beef about this, but are not likely to be taken seriously. I will not be fined for failing to drink; therefore my right to drink is untainted.

Voting needs to be reformed, if for no better reason than that the disinterested people who go along to vote because they are compelled to, probably skew results. How many people have been voted in or out by people who essentially don’t care enough about the process enough to vote voluntarily.

I have some modest suggestions for reform here.

(1) Voluntary voting.

(2) Optional preferences. Queensland is as far as I know the only state where it is not compulsory to allocate preferences. A vote for only one candidate elsewhere without preference allocation is invalid despite clearly being for that candidate.

(3) An extra box on bottom of the ballot paper marked “None of the above”. This gives the voter the right to vote that none of those candidates are acceptable. If ‘none of the above’ were to win, then a by-election must be held with the original candidates disqualified from standing.

(4) Public campaign funding should be abolished.

Politicians will be opposed to these reforms because they offer the threat of demonstrating how little interest that they arouse in the electorates in some cases, and because public funding is based on the number of votes they get.

There can be no justification for public funding. It can not even be claimed that political parties deserve this through ‘Public Interest’ as the only support they deserve is that which the public is prepared to voluntarily give them. Arguments have been made that public funding reduces corruption, however the best method of achieving this would be for the politicians to be less corrupt.

Faith

By Jim Fryar.

The following is a response by a reader to an article by Greg Sherridan in the “Australian”, blog section.

“Religion is very scary for rational people, and you can’t single out the Muslims Mr. Sheridan. Both the bible and the Koran clearly say that believers must kill unbelievers, and that anyone (even within your own family) who thinks about changing their religion must also be killed (eg. Deuteronomy, 13:6).

The brutal basis for both religions is basically the Old Testament, and you can’t cherry pick the word of god. The prophets are clearly different.

But then again Christians say Jesus is in fact the same as god, and sacrificed himself to himself, then reincarnated himself as himself, in order to absolve sins that he as the creator of everything was basically responsible for in the first place (at least the Muslims can see that Easter doesn’t make sense).

Fundamentalists in both religions are waiting for the end of the world, with relish. (See Andrew Denton’s movie for the Christian perspective). Because they will all be going to paradise, while the other billion or so believers will all be going to hell (to be tortured for eternity because god doesn’t like the way they think about him - how can you worship someone/something that treats other people like this?)?

The Israeli, American and Iranian leaders might just be trying to fulfill the dreams of their fundamentalists.”

...........................................................................

This is not atypical of the type of comment we get when people argue from a predetermined perspective ie. Religion = fundamentalism = bad. The error this person makes is in ignoring the mainstream applications of those faiths, in the present day.

While I am essentially a Christian I am not into the Bible sufficiently to dispute or accept the statements of the writer, however the fact remains that in the modern era no Christian church advocates killing your relatives or friends for apostasy, certainly not in my local area anyway.

Any poll taken today would, I am sure, show very little support among Christians for the inquisition. True Christians are appalled at the excesses of the past in the name of the faith, fundamentalist Islam on the other hand regard theirs as an example of the way things should be done today.

The writer also adopts a fundamentalist position himself in claiming that –“ The brutal basis for both religions is basically the Old Testament, and you can’t cherry pick the word of god. The prophets are clearly different.”

All of the contents of Bible started life as oral traditions, which were written down over time, and probably contains the apocryphal, the legendry, and odd stories from here and there. The Old Testament is the same as the new in this regard. It was also written from the perspective of a very different society to that in which we live today.

The difference is that Islam has not advanced from what it is, and what it seems doomed to remain, - a medieval faith.

Christianity has evolved with the times into a faith of forgiveness, virtue, tolerance, freedom, and responsibility, or at least it is from my perspective, I know that not all Christians apply it in this way, but we are evolving in the right direction. Bigotry will always exist in society, and in Christianity. Strangely I get the impression that the same applies to the letter writer.

Judeo/Christianity holds a message of liberty – ‘Place no man between yourself and your god”, “You shall have no king….”, and the valid warning, “This is what your king shall do unto you….”. It also contains in the Ten Commandments, an excellent guide on how to live without causing conflict with those around you.

The fundamentalist positions taken in all faiths tend to assume the pagan view of all things being controlled by a god figure in a system in which we are merely pawns.

Gun Controls

By Jim Fryar

The following are comments by Australia’s leading political luminaries after an incident in Melbourne, in which three people were shot, one fatally by a bikie criminal.

Mr. Howard said while gun laws were a state responsibility, he would be prepared to talk to the premiers about any further changes.

"As to handguns, we certainly do have very strict laws, but I'm always ready to talk to the state premiers who have control over these matters about whether they can and ought to be strengthened.

Federal Justice Minister David Johnston said the shooting reinforced the need for states to address the black market in guns.

"I know that it is very, very, difficult for a law abiding citizen to obtain a handgun," Senator Johnston said."If someone wants to purchase a concealable weapon on the black market they will probably be successful.'

Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said gun laws had been on the backburner for too long.

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said there were as many as 20,000 illegal handguns in Australia, on top of up to 200,000 registered handguns.

Yet federal parliament had previously voted down amendments to ban semi-automatic handguns, except for police and other legitimate users, he said.

The National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC) also called for a nationwide blanket ban on semi-automatic handguns.


If these imbeciles are incapable of understanding that: -

a. The weapon was obtained illegally,

b. Laws against this are already in place,

c. All criminal acts committed are covered by existing laws,

d. More prohibition laws will not change this,

e. Regardless of how many laws they pass, criminals will not obey them, then they are obviously incompetent and past their use by date.

Want that warm inner glow? Pay tax

The following is a report from the 'Courier Mail'.

“WHO would have thought that paying your taxes can switch on the reward centers of your brain like a party drug?

That is the finding of a study that recorded how the brains of a group of women lit up with pleasure as money was mandatorily transferred from their bank, accounts to a charity.

The results were similar to, although not as pronounced, as when the subjects donated money voluntarily.

Scientists from the University of Oregon, reporting in the journal, Science, say the research sheds light on that very human quality of altruism, or self-sacrifice, and shows that "paying taxes can make people feel good".

The study confirms the economic theory of "warm glow" giving, says Paul Fritiers, a happiness eco-nometrician at the Queensland University of Technology. "Economists tend to think of things in terms of utility but in the simplest form (warm glow giving) is just saying,'1 become happier if 1 see that you're happier'," Professor Fritiers says. "It means 1 care about
how other people feel; if they feel better, 1 feel better. It means youre no longer a purely selfish agent but that you're willing to pay money to make other people feet happy."

The study represents the new field of neuroeconomics, a meeting of economics and psychology”.

How we get from donating money to charity to paying taxes is uncertain in the report, however if it is the case that all of you people out there swoon with ecstasy at the thought of your next tax bill it is no wonder taxes are so high.
If this is the case, shouldn’t governments be altruistic by getting us to pay more and higher taxes to make us even happier.

Perhaps as the study was apparently done with women subjects, happiness at paying taxes may be a 'girl thing'.

Natural Remedies

Well, winter is upon us down here, and my daughter has brought the flu,(known colloqually here as the wog), home from school.

After many trips to the chemist in the past, a couple of years ago I discovered the best cough mixture I have ever encountered. My mates always recomended rum, but I much preferr scotch, and besides it does nothing for the cough, just warms you up and stops you careing about it. Actually I think rum is supposed to be a preventative measure rather than a cure.

Port is the secret. The darker the better, dries up the nose , gets rid of the irritation in the throat, and after a few, gives you a wonderful sence of wellbeing, and unless you get a really cheap one, tastes a great deal better than cough mixture. I mentioned this to the chemist, who surprisingly agreed, and said that the anti oxidants and a whole lot of other things that are beneficial in it would help, however I still don't see them directing people to the bottle shops.

So, friends, (Every body is at the moment, as I am treating a paticulally persistent one tonight), remember this one for the arrival of those goughs and sniffles. Oh, and by the way, it is one of the few excuses a wife will allow you for coming to bed half cut.

On review, I feel that perhaps I had a little too wonderful a sence of wellbeing when I wrote this, but the message is still valid and it worked.

Torture

Last night Four Corners ran an investigation of torture in the current international situation which Deserves comment. I will be Quoting from the transcript.

The conclusion from the program from my point of view is that a strictly ‘practical’ or utilitarian viewpoint, it has limited usefulness, and may be more of a liability both from the aspect of accuracy, and from the moral outrage the use of torture inspires in the community.

This is borne out by the following exchange: -

SALLY NEIGHBOUR (to Jack Cloonan):
And what about if you use physical coercion, even torture?

JACK CLOONAN, SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, FBI'S BIN LADEN UNIT, 1996-2002:
I’m not going to argue that you aren’t going to get information from people if you torture them. You will get information.
The question is are you going to get accurate information or are you just getting something that frankly is expedient?

PROFESSOR ALFRED McCOY, AUTHOR, "A QUESTION OF TORTURE":
In the third century AD, a Roman jurist named Ulpian who had considerable experience at torture, in one of his legal commentaries he wrote "torture is a difficult and deceptive thing for the strong will resist and the weak will say anything to end the pain", and everything we’ve learned in the last 1800 years confirms over and over again the fundamental wisdom of those words.

Apparently some of the most unreliable intelligence the Americans have used came from torture, including some of the stuff used to justify the Iraq invasion.

SALLY NEIGHBOUR:
In March 2003 the US and its allies invaded Iraq. One of the reasons given for the invasion was that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were working together on weapons of mass destruction.

(Excerpt):
COLIN POWELL, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: ...
I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaeda. Fortunately this operative is now detained and he has told his story...
(End of excerpt)

SALLY NEIGHBOUR:
The detainee Powell was referring to was Ibn Sheik al Libi, the al-Qaeda captive taken over by the CIA and sent to Egypt in a box.
(Excerpt continued):
COLIN POWELL, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
: ... The support that this detainee describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000...

At the same time an FBI guy said that he got good results by courteous treatment.

JACK CLOONAN, SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, FBI'S BIN LADEN UNIT, 1996-2002:
I may sit and talk to them, I may just tell them my name and not even ask them a question. I may say, "Have you prayed today? Do you know which way Mecca is and if you haven’t prayed why don’t I allow you to pray? And by the way, how are you feeling? Do want something to eat?" You know.

SALLY NEIGHBOUR (to Jack Cloonan):
Does that approach work?


JACK CLOONAN, SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, FBI'S BIN LADEN UNIT, 1996-2002:
Often times it did surprisingly. If you engage in a lot of yelling and a lot of histrionics and frankly amateurish sophomoric stuff you are gong to stiffen the resolve of somebody who’s trying to protect information.

Reference is then made to the French torture of Algerians in the battle of Algiers.

“An estimated 300,000 people were tortured, and a similar number killed. The insurgency was crushed, but the French people were so horrified by their government’s tactics that France was forced to withdraw from Algeria.”

This bears out my contention that the use of torture is even from a practical point of view is of limited usefulness, and can be counterproductive.

This is not why I oppose it however.

I maintain that the reason we in the west are at the top of the heap is not because of who we are, but because of what we are.
We are the inheritors of a political/ethical/economic system, which is the closest thing that such a system can get to a realistic reflection of human nature. Since reaching its philosophical peak after the end of war of Independence, it has declined somewhat in its application, but the system is so good that even in decline its material benefits have advanced.

It will take many more government restrictions on our personal and economic liberties to drag down the capitalist system and the benefits that it bestows on mankind.

The west tends to base the philosophy behind it on a strong sense of rights, - freedom/liberty, rights of man, sense of fair play, etc., whereby people have the right to live their lives in the absence of oppression. Governments tend to be restricted in how far they can go, either by constitution, or the knowledge of at what point the people wont stand for it any more.

This system tends to have an inbuilt tolerance about it, as characterized by Thomas Jefferson:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

In a war, we are in hostilities normally with people who do not necessarily adhere to the same values as we do. Should we afford them the same rights as we have?

We have the attitude that it is morally wrong to torture our own citizens, if we were to hear of it going on within our justice system we wouldn’t stand for it. Torture is after all, morally reprehensible. We consider it a barbarous act.

If it is in fact a barbarous act to do it to each other, it is no less a barbarous act to do it to others, after all despite their views on morality and ethics being different to ours they are nonetheless human. There is in fact no difference between torturing a human being and torturing an animal, and we don’t stand for that.

If it was accepted that it was right to torture the enemy in the “war on terror”, then we have to accept torturing pushers and users in the “war on drugs”, or poor people in the “war on poverty”, after all they are all rhetorical wars.

The ‘enemy’ in the war on terror are not genuine combatants, but vicious criminals and should be treated as such, and the rules of due process should apply.

Those of you who wish to give me hell in the light of my previous statements should note that during the writing of this article, and in the taking of flack from you over utterances in the past, (smug bastards), I have had reason to change my views on the ‘war on terror’. It is my considered opinion that the term should be dropped and not used again, as not only does it give the state a pretext to take away our rights under ‘emergency powers’, but lends terrorists a legitimacy that they don’t have.

Link

Bring out the heavy weapons

By Jim Fryar

The following was Posted by me as a comment on The Australian Libertarian Society website 'Thoughts on Freedom', and I thought it was worth sharing with you. http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/freedom-is-a-security-threat-claims-blair/#comment-14552

Most of us misunderstand the heaviest weapon in our arsenal. Liberty and the knowledge of liberty are the greatest threats to oppressive regimes. The greatest fear they have is that their people will discover it, cherish it and work toward it. Only death will extinguish the spark once it is lit.

This is why communism, and fascism had such hatred of the free world, this is why they aimed their propaganda inward as much as outward, this is why islamofascism sneers at our values and claims moral superiority over us. The rhetoric of their of their religious leaders is proven false by their constant claims to have been humiliated so much over the centuries. If they were as good as they claim to be, they would have advanced and been respected.

The free world has constantly advanced, the above have collapsed or not advanced in any other way than conquest. Our greatest threat to communism was liberty, they had to build walls and guard their borders to stop their people getting out.

To restrict the liberties of our people in the face of threats is the ultimate in stupidity, the reason we are where we are, at the top of the heap is because we are free. The answer to oppression is not to oppress our own people, after all if we are oppressed too then what is the point of resisting alien oppression apart from xenophobia, - “Our oppression is better than theirs, foreign bastards”.