Cassowaries Rant

In response to Joel Parsons again

Here we have a collection of relatively short responses to some of The Bench’s recent posts.

In response to ‘Julian and Andrew Bolt’

As an interesting note, the reason we have separation of church and state in Australia (and it is in our constitution) is more because we had people coming from England, Ireland and Scotland, which had different popular/state religions: the Anglicans would’ve been upset with the Catholic Church or the Kirk; Catholics with the Anglican church or the Kirk; members of the Kirk with anything but the Kirk. I guess the question you have to ask if you want to know if it’s a good thing is if the means justify the ends…

At any rate, as far as the rest of Parson’s post on anti-vilification laws, I’m going to have to agree with him. What was described was nothing but corruption and entirely disgusting. I’ll even agree with him that we should get rid of them: but I’ll justify this with there should be no need for them (should be as opposed to is); on the other hand, perhaps anti-vilification laws do nothing more than create what we claim they’re meant to remove. Furthermore, affirmative action probably does more harm than good; revolution cannot start from without or you get Communist Russia/China.

In response to ‘Feedback—again’

• It seems to me that Joel’s saying living in Eltham makes you more successful. I know he knows that’s utter bullshit: there’s nothing about a particular area that will make you better able to exploit others. At least, you’ve disregarded the fact that being better able to exploit others causes them to be able to afford to live there, but not moving out of an area certainly increases the prices… I guess the other option is that perhaps you have more of a community spirit then other suburbs, but I’d be surprised if this were so: most newer areas have been designed to make community somewhat difficult, in spite of claims to the contrary.
• I’m not sure what house prices were like a decade ago, but relative to other similar areas (which is not Toorak but other relatively new outer suburbs), were they higher? I think that’s the question you have to ask. People who bought houses in Endeavour Hills probably did so because they were cheaper there than in Eltham, so they were better able to afford it. You must remember that inner suburbs haven’t always been as popular as they are now.
• I’d put the Labor Party as right-authoritarians-but-relatively-centre.

In response to ‘More Feedback’

Firstly, the name of the blog was Cassowaries Rant, that being the plural of a noun followed by the third person plural of a verb. Unfortunately, there seems to be some difficulty in grasping this (I’m not sure that anyone who’s made use of my blog’s name has got it right), so I’ve since renamed it to something that should be easier to spell. Don’t feel like it was your fault, though, Joel: I’ve been thinking of renaming it for a while but couldn’t think of anything suitably witty.

Anyway, thanks for the response and nevermind the wait. Over the weekend, I came across the theory of Anarchism. While it is an extremely freedom-loving, like me, and left-wing, like me, theory, I’m not sure how far I can agree with it. I had been planning on making a longer post, but because I haven’t posted here in over a week, and because I would like a quite thorough introduction to anarchism (which An Anarchist FAQ certainly provides in its over 500 pages) before I make my decision regarding it, the longer post will have to wait. But until I’ve made it, which will hopefully thoroughly explain my ideas of how society should work, and the light all my posts sholud be read in, this post my seem slightly contradictory or surprising: this is not reflecting a change of view, but a possible change in my understanding of humanity.

Till then, some questions about your ideal government.

Firstly, I’m not sure if government is the best term to describe it with. Instead of governing, you want it to protect.

Secondly, would there be elections with this government? It seems that they would be superfluous, as there would be no policies because once you get minarchism, it would be very difficult to go back to a welfare state (and, of course, the inverse is difficult). The only question is which freedoms will need protection (i.e. the freedom to exploit people who want to live in relative comfort or the freedom to live in relative comfort, which I think summarises the right libertarian and left libertarian ideas, respectively); my curiosity lies in how easy it would be for a society of that sort to swing between the two (I don’t ask you to hypothesise on this, and whether or not elections are allowed will probably have minimal effect on it. I’m asking if you think elections will be superfluous in this scenario or if you think there will be some use for them, and if so: what?).

Thirdly, what will there be to prevent a government whose sole interest is in freedoms from removing them? We’ve seen the freedom-loving George W. Bush Administration strip back many of the freedoms enjoyed by Americans with the interestly named USA PATRIOT Act, 2001, or the DMCA, 2000. Would such a minimal government retain a monopoly on physical violence? I can certainly see legislation (or whatever equivalent may exist—and any organisation must have some) like the USA PATRIOT Act being used to argue that fighting against anti-anti-freedom fighters is illegal (who fight because they’re being fought against when trying to remind the government what ‘freedom of speech’ means). I think it best to look at all possibilities: it is things like these which make me unsure of anarchism—though by the same token, I’d feel safer with no government than with one with no distractions.

Fourthly, I’m not sure how you conclude that taxes are the only bills we’re forced to pay. Explain to me how I’m able to get out of paying for my food without (a) going hungry or (b) stealing (remembering all the while that food isn’t magickable up out of nowhere, and requires, among other things, land to be grown on, something to start its existence, and, in general, time before it becomes self-sustaining). If anything, I’d say that food and water bills are closer to the only ones we’re forced to pay: plenty of people live without a roof over their head, without a job; how many live without food and water?

Finally, the point about Nazi Germany almost doesn’t justify your belief when taken from a broad enough perspective. But, after all, it was governments that limited Germany’s ability to prosper hence sticking the German people between a rock and a hardplace that lead to the Nazi Party being voted in. Though IIRC Germany wasn’t especially democratic before the war that lead to it all… At any rate, in Usenet and forums with geeks and similar venues, there is a general rule that (1) the longer any discussion goes for, the higher the chance the Nazies will be mentioned and (2) once this has happened, whoever made mention of them has officially lost the argument and everyone can pack up and go home. I recommend avoiding the use of Nazies: they are an appeal to irrational emotionality, hatred, and violence, rather than to intellect and thought. Yes, you will be bagged for bringing them up: but you certainly deserve it. Nazies are not an argument.