Australian - or rather proletarian racism

A combination of common racism and a latent desire for random thuggery has surfaced in Sydney, with the riots in Cronulla. The Sydney Morning Herald has umpteen articles linked about it here.

Those on the left want to paint this as something encouraged by the Howard government’s approach to refugees, those on the right want to downplay the racial component of it – both are wrong.

There is an undercurrent of violent potential among a certain calibre of young men in Australian (and dare I say New Zealand, British and American society as well) which in certain circumstances sees them willing to act in ways that they wouldn’t as individuals. They get courage they wouldn’t have on their own, and they seek to prove themselves to their “comrades” by being destructive towards other people and their property – it is a brutal, cold, mindless savagery. It is a savagery seen at times with football hooligans, street gangs and when some of them get drunk on a Saturday night. It comes from being, by and large, pathetic little nobodies who don’t feel like they control the world, the probably don’t own a house, haven’t travelled much and don’t have children. Their main interests are watching sport on telly, getting pissed with their mates and shagging whatever they can find. Being tough is important to them, using their brains and being articulate isn’t.

The left like to put this down to capitalism, unemployment, dispossession and the downtrodden working class being angry – which is bollocks. At a time of low unemployment and relatively high prosperity in Australia, these people still exist – they are not poverty stricken, but they don’t like people who are different from them. It is an ancient tribalism, which in nature makes sense – back in caveman days you feared the tribe that looked different from you, because they might be after your stock, land or women – so it made evolutionary sense to be racist. Civilisation tore that away, now these ordinary Australian men are jealous of young people from other ethnic origins who look wealthier, more successful and who also commit crimes, though no more than “real Australians” (Australians of British origin). It just takes one of them to criticise the bloke who looks a bit different, and his mates go along with it- followers sticking up for their mates, and it doesn’t really matter what you do, you stick up for each other. A few people of non-white Australian origin commit crimes, and it's time for "payback" - alluring to those small minded local men.

It’s a simplistic view of the world – and a fear that people who don’t look like you are taking over “your” public space. “your” beach “your” park and “your” women. The classifying of anyone of another race as "probably the criminals" or the same as someone who committed an awful crime - it is how all racists demonise a group. It is the same mentality that saw Anthony Walker attacked in the UK because he was black with a white girlfriend. No doubt the men who did this were offended because one of “their” girls was with one of “them”. Savage gutter collectivism.

However, those on the right who say it is “just thuggery” and racism isn’t important are wrong. The crime is no different no matter what races are involved, the same people are hurt, but it is the collective brainlessness of racism that is behind all this – and it is a brainlessness that does not only lie on one side. People of all ethnic origins can be racist – it just so happens that the racist undercurrent of part of Australian society has come out. However it also exists in Britain as shown by this lot. New Zealand has its share too.

There are plenty of racist people about – they largely wont admit it. You’ll hear “I’m not racist, I just don’t want there to be too many Asians here”. Remember Australians voted in 1968 about whether to allow Aborigines to become citizens – yes 1968! A majority of “true blue Australians” said yes, how generous of them.

The racism of the past is well known, but it takes a lot to remove the instinctual natural racism based on fear of those who are different from you, particularly with people driven by a close tribal instinct of mateship and being “local”. The only way to do this, is for people to leave, travel and find out what people elsewhere are really like, because if an Arab man is shagging your sister – it might be because she wanted him rather than your slopehead mates?

and may they be sodomised by the erect phallus of a bull

Boycott Telstra Clear - hypocritical supporters of fascism

Yes, I am calling a private company, that claims to compete with a large, formerly government owned company, hypocritical supporters of fascism. I also believe in free market economics.

Why?

TelstraClear is a company I hold in the lowest regard for several reasons but more on that later.

It has accused Telecom of lobbying the government to not introduce local loop unbundling. In short, Telecom, on behalf of its shareholders, was pleading with the government to not interfere with its property rights.

Remember, Telecom owns its network, the most ubiquitous local phone network in the country, not the government, not “the people”. The “people” (represented by the government) sold it – and the proceeds were used to pay off debt held by “the people” and pay for some current expenditure. Telstra Clear doesn’t own Telecom’s network either. Telecom’s owners on privatisation agreed to allow interconnection so that competitors could connect with Telecom customers, and this allowed competition in long distance, international and mobile calls quite early on. Local call competition emerged when what was then Clear Communications, Telstra and Saturn (which have all since merged into one) established their own local networks. Since then, the government has forced Telecom to resale its network to competitors for local access as well. During that time, of course, another operator provides what could be seen as local phone service- Vodafone, and nothing is stopping anyone else legally from building competing fixed or mobile phone networks. However - it's a lot easier to not bother isn't it Telstra Clear?

Now having the ability to do long distance, international and local calls using its own network, and reselling Telecom's, Telstra Clear wasn’t happy. It wanted full access to Telecom’s property – akin to Woolworths telling New World that it must be allowed to open a store inside New World’s premises, where it didn’t have premises of its own. How about if Air New Zealand was forced to wholesale part of the seats on its planes to Origin Pacific to promote “competition”?

Now one of the reasons I hate Telstra Clear and its predecessor Clear, is because they mistakenly milked New Zealand public sympathy for years, by claiming to be the telecommunications underdog, even though Clear did next to nothing to provide real competition. When Clear entered the NZ market, the prices for international and national calls did NOT change for retail customers. $5 capped national calls were introduced by Telecom in response to competition from smaller operators, Clear copied this. Clear was hardly ever the innovator - Saturn Communications (which was bought by Telstra and then absorbed into Telstra Clear) was. It was looking to expand its local network across Auckland and into Hamilton, Dunedin and Tauranga, before cost and the moans of local authorities who didn't overhead cabling to be installed put paid to that idea.

When prices dropped, it was either because Telecom led it, or responded to reductions in prices from companies like Worldxchange and Compass Communications, Clear copied this. It has almost never been a price leader, the price leaders have either been Telecom or smaller operators.

I know this because I advised the government on telecommunications policy at the time! At no stage did Clear make a dent in the market based on price.

My other beef with Telstra Clear is the drop in standards of service. I was a Saturn customer when it laid its own network in Wellington (note to Telstra Clear – your OWN network, spend your money, build your own network then compete) and it provided an excellent phone, internet and cable tv service at a very reasonable price. The takeover by Telstra and the subsequent merge with Clear saw standards drop. On one occasion the weather damaged my phone line, and the company came out and changed the wires around so my second line (for the internet) had switched numbers with the first line. So people phoning me would get my computer and vice versa, and it took three weeks for them to fix it, after umpteen calls and the impudent bitch at the other end arguing that I had never called. On top of that, I found their switch to Voice of IP saw call quality drop so that I couldn’t always hear conversations to friends overseas. In short, the service became shockingly bad – even when I was leaving NZ, the company claimed to have sent me a pack to post my cable TV box in, but never did, even though I rang 3 times over 2 weeks asking where it was- the company said it was “my fault” because I apparently hadn’t checked my mail box (I had!).

Telstra Clear is not a typical private company trying to provide services with its own resources and compete in the market – it is a leech forever whinging about how it can’t compete because it doesn’t have access to its competitor’s network.

It accused Telecom of threatening the government that if forced to open up its own network to competitors, its share price would drop and it would have a negative effect on the economy.

Now it has come out that Telstra Clear has threatened that if the government does NOT do this, it is in breach of the Agreement on Basic Telecommunications negotiated with other countries under the aegis of the WTO. So why is it ok for Telstra Clear to lobby the government but not Telecom?

Besides which, Telstra Clear’s argument is utter bollocks. Why? Well for one, I was involved in the negotiations of that agreement at the WTO – the text was very carefully agreed and it does NOT require local loop unbundling. It does not prohibit countries from doing it, but it only requires interconnection.

On top of that, Telstra Clear talked utter bullshit claiming that the Australia-US free trade agreement requires local loop unbundling. It doesn’t.

Telstra Clear should butt out, and start doing what it is meant to do – compete. The service compared to Telecom is shocking – and I nearly switched to Telecom twice, and Telecom was only too willing to help me. Telstra Clear should provide good service, at good prices and win people over through their products and services. It has access to Telecom’s network at a wholesale level and for interconnection, it also has its own local network in the Auckland CBD, and through suburban Wellington and Christchurch.

However, here is my biggest complaint - Telstra Clear wont open up its network. If you are a Telstra Clear local customer, you cannot use any of its competitors, like IHUG or Worldxchange for toll calls – because Telstra Clear wont let its smaller competitors use its network. I tried, as an IHUG net customers to use IHUG for phone service, but Telstra Clear doesn't let it happen - Telecom does.

Fascists? Yes. It wants the state to effectively control private property rights of its biggest competitor, so that Telecom holds its property, but Telstra Clear can do what it wishes with its property.

That is why I am calling for libertarians and believers in free enterprise to boycott Telstra Clear – tell the company you don’t want to do business with anyone who does not believe in private property rights for anyone else other than themselves.

and Labour got this one right in refusing to listen to Telstra Clear's moans.

The immorality of executing drug dealers

BZP has commented on the execution of Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore, for the crime of trading in a banned substance. Yes I know that doing this through Singapore is a risk, and you take the risk when you do it - but I agree with BZP that what is particularly vile is Marc Alexander - former United Future MP, and one of the more sensible ones - agreeing with the view that drug dealing is like mass murder.

It isn't. Most people who take drugs are not addicts, they are people choosing to ingest a substance for their own pleasure. Most drug users do so occasionally for a certain period of their lives, and then drift away from it. Some are addicts, as there are alcoholics, addicts to gambling, porn and food. Those people need to help themselves, but just because they exist is not a reason to criminalise all of the others. Criminalisation also means that the quality and price go down and up respectively - many drug related health problems are related to the impurity of the drug.

However, for people like Marc Alexander a drug dealer - someone selling to a willing buyer - is no different to an executioner, someone applying force against another individual.

The Economist magazine some years ago stated, in essence, that drug use may not be smart or even safe, but that it is no reason to ban it.

Abolish Auckland City Council

Rodney Hide has announced he is resubmitting his private member’s bill on capping council rates increases to the rate of inflation, after reporting that Auckland City Council will be increasing rates by 55-196% over the next ten years.

Of course this was going to happen for three reasons:

1. Local government is full of petty bureaucrats and inexorably works to increase its size and influence. It is cancerous, it doesn’t seek to shrink.
2. Labour (and the then Alliance) and the Greens voted in 2001 to give local government a power of general (in)competence. This means that councils can get into whatever activity they wish, as long as they consult “the community”. Since most of “the community” spends its time working and living, and can’t be bothered responding to these consultation processes, most things councils do get rubber stamped. Council were set off the legal leash with the Local Government Act 2002.
3. The lefty council elected last year by Aucklanders is even more enamoured by more interference and more council spending – so Aucklanders made things even worse.

So there you have it – until local government is slashed to the bone, or better still, abolished it will grow and grow, like a tumour. Rodney’s Bill ought to be supported by the Nats and United Future (since United Future campaigned on abolishing GST on rates), so we should let NZ First argue in favour of growing local authority rates. You might ask National Party member and Auckland City Councillor Aaron Bhatnagar what he thinks - after all, Auckland City Council simply grew SLOWER under the Banks/CRN council that got voted out in 2004.

If Libertarianz were in Parliament, it would support the Bill too, although would be working on amendments to at least cap rates for ten years, if not slash them.

The truth is that rates shouldn’t be capped at inflation, councils need trimming, so they should have rates capped indefinitely, and prohibited from entering into any new activities and required to privatise (by whatever means) any businesses they operate.

User pays should apply to all services that can be charged that way practicably, and what is left to councils should be the remaining “public good” activities that are most difficult to shift to the private sector.

Within three years, Auckland City Council could have sold or given away shares in all businesses it is involved in, and sold all surplus property. Subsidies would have been abolished. User pays could apply wherever it could be practically implemented.

Within six years, Auckland City Council could have given to the voluntary sector all of its social activities, such as community centres and pools and parks. Activities unable to be operated by user pays would be transferred to the voluntary sector, or adjacent private property owners (e.g. trusts for footpaths).

Within nine years, the remaining planning functions of Auckland City Council could have been abolished, as property rights were granted in a wider range of factors (airspace, noise, pollution). Roads would be held by either body corporates for local streets or a company for major arterials - and the relevant owner would charge for road use.

See, Auckland City Council could be abolished within ten years.

and kneesocks would be compulsory for all women 18-35

Greens opposing more state violence?

Well, just to be fair to them, it appears the Greens have dropped the gun in one case – the regulation of dietary supplements. Now I suspect this is largely because of a warm fuzzy feeling the Greens have towards so-called natural remedies, you know all those extracts of plants, bugs and whatsoever that are vastly overpriced, and tend to do anything short of promise better sleep, fitness, sexual performance. The Greens don’t tend to like the pharmaceutical sector (all that science and cold hard analysis using chemicals), but like anyone who can take a lemon and make a cold and flu tablet out of it – forgetting that all substances are chemicals and just because it is natural, doesn’t mean it is good for you. Uranium, arsenic and lead are all very natural and pure.

Sue Kedgley is right, regulating dietary supplements through a proposed Trans-Tasman Therapeutics Goods Agency is not in New Zealand’s interests. It would be a highly bureaucratic system with huge compliance costs. A better approach would be to return to the right to sue (tort law not Kedgley) and opening ACC up to competition, so that producers of dietary supplements that sell products that are negligently harmful can be held to account.

Unfortunately, Sue having dropped the gun for the big bureaucracy, is still holding a baton when she says that “we can begin work on a sensible, New Zealand-based scheme to improve the regulation of dietary supplements”. Imagine there’s no regulation, it’s easy if you try, no bureaucrats or authorities, above us only sky.