Burmese junta letting its people die

Apparently today the Burmese embassy in Bangkok was closed, for a public holiday, whilst many aid workers sought visas to enter and provide help. French Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher has asked that the UN Security Council pass a resolution to allow aid to be flown in by force if necessary.

.

The Australian reports that Burma was warned of the cyclone two days ago but didn't warn its beleagured population. One of the murderous thugs that run the regime has shown how much he is concerned about the locals:

.

Social Welfare Minister Maung Maung Swe said "For expert teams from overseas to come here, they have to negotiate with the Foreign Ministry and our senior authorities"

.

Just another government with blood on its hands, letting its people die for the sake of protecting their precious dictatorship. Charming.

.

China meanwhile is sending US$1 million of aid to the capital and half a million in aid materials. That'll be well spent of course. Wen (Chinese PM) said "I believe that the government and people of Myanmar will soon overcome the difficulties caused by the cyclone and restore normal life and production," in a message to his Myanmar counterpart General Thein Sein. Yes, the government is always most important isn't it?

China's censorship easing off?

The Peoples' Daily is the Chinese government's official paper. Its forum has much anti-CNN anti-Western discussion, but I did manage to post the following:

.

"You may criticise CNN, but is it possible on Chinese media to loudly condemn CCTV? You see unlike people in China, I can watch CNN any time and it will never be censored. I often disagree with it, but I am free to choose. CNN is a private company, it does not represent any government, people in China should remember that and that they cant see it uncensored."

.

It's not much, but perhaps things are changing slowly. It wasn't long ago that such criticism would be censored.

It's his money not yours

This is what Dr Cullen believes when he talks about what he ISN'T going to give back in tax cuts in the NZ Herald. So he wont institute a tax free threshold for income, so that NZ will remain one of the few countries where the government taxes children for having a paper round.

.

This is, fundamentally, the difference between those on the left and libertarians. Dr. Cullen and the Greens (forever talking about "we" and "our" as if the state and individuals are indivisible) believe that taxes are not your money, but their money - their money to be used to pay for setting up a radio station, subsidising a business, buying a train set, paying for welfare - it's all their money. Taxes are moral to the left, they are the way by which the rich (spit) have their wealth (probably not justified) taken to be given to those who deserve it, or for a "higher purpose". The "national interest" being the reason why people are forced to pay for what Dr Cullen wants.

.

Now you wont ever see those on the left talking about force, they prefer to ignore what taxation actually is. It isn't something people give up willingly - no. It is taken under threat of more being taken, and imprisonment. Don't forget, the state only presumes you're guilty of not paying your taxes - if you murder someone, you're innocent till proven guilty.

.

You see the money taken in taxes is yours, you gained it by salary, wage, dividend, interest, sale or gift because someone chose to give it to you for whatever reason. However, most politicians think that it is their money, and moreover that you can choose between those who will take a bit more and those will take a bit less. That's going to be the parameters of the debate at the election. Dr Cullen is going to throw you a little bit back no doubt, and you'll be expected to be very grateful for that. The Greens will oppose it, because they believe the state should do whatever it thinks is right to make people behave correctly. National will offer you a little bit more than Labour, but still believes it isn't your money - it is the government's money.

.

So what i want to ask is this. Whose money do YOU think it is?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy you healthcare. Do you think you're getting a good deal from him? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy your kids' education. Do you think you're getting a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr Cullen to use your money to support businesses or other organisations of various kinds, including recording music videos, producing TV programmes. Would you choose for this to happen? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Many of your trust Dr Cullen to buy you a retirement income? Do you trust you'll get a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Got the picture?

.

This is what arguments about tax cuts are about. Are politicians and bureaucrats better placed to spend your money than you are? Would you choose to spend your money on what they want?

.

Ah yes, some of you say. What about schools and hospitals? You're happy to pay taxes for them. Are you? You get good value for money do you? What happens if you don't like the school, you can... no the money stays there. How about the hospital? Oh yes, you can't do anything about that either.

.

How about if you gave Dr Cullen some more, so he could buy your groceries, would be simpler wouldn't it? Ah, you get that, but so many don't get why he shouldn't be trusted to buy your education or health care.

.

You'll also notice that most politicians want you to pay taxes so you can pay for the education, health care and food of OTHER families. Ask them how many people you're expected to pay for - you wont get a straight answer, but the implication is that you're obliged to otherwise there is something wrong with you.

.

You see I think it IS your money. So here's a trick to play this election. Do it at candidate's meetings or whatever way you can find - ask the magic question:

.

Do you think the taxes I have to pay are my money or your money to use?

.

If they say it is their money, congratulate them on their honesty and ask why they think they have to force you to pay for things they want.

.

If they say it is your money, ask you when you can have it back because you think you can buy better healthcare, education and pensions than they can.

.

No doubt you'll get all sorts of weasel words about taxation being the price for civilisation - bullshit. So tax havens are uncivilised are they?

.

You'll hear something like "what about all the people who can't afford it"? In which case, why should you put up with substandard health care and education for the sake of those who'd rather spend their own money on something else? Why deny you choice because of others?

.

You'll hear something like "most people agree with taxes". Say that "most people" once thought homosexuality should be a crime, and that the rights of minorities shouldn't be sacrificed because the majority wants them to be.

.

You see a libertarian doesn't believe taxes are moral. Taxes are theft, legalised of course, but still theft. Those who do not produce taking money from those who do. Those who truly believe in less government will phase out taxes, and reduce them without a second thought. They will proudly hand back your money, but in exchange say it is up to you to buy education, health care, a pension and insure yourself against unemployment and the like.

.

Will National do that?

Disaster aid for dictatorships

The tragedy that has beset Burma has according to the BBC now claimed 22,000 lives with another 41,000 missing. The cyclone has destroyed so many populated areas near the coast that the need for emergency aid and assistance is clear. In many countries it would be a simple matter of the relevant government allowing government and non-government aid agencies in to provide shelter, food, clothing, water and medical assistance to those now on the brink of their lives, but this is Burma.

.

Burma is a military dictatorship, a particularly nasty one, and has been so since 1962. It suppresses dissent with little mercy, and the military exists primarily to keep the government in power. It is notable how absent the military has been during this civil defence emergency, clearly it doesn't exist to help the population.

.

You see there is little point giving aid or money to the Burmese government - for the simple reason it wont do anything with it except to enrich itself. It is corrupt and murderous, and few want this regime to do anything short of collapse. It is telling that the French government has been explicit about this, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying that only 200,000 euros is being donated because "we don't really trust the way the Burmese ministry would use the money". Indeed.

.

The USA has promised to come to the assistance of Burma, but only on condition that US disaster assessment teams can enter and be in control of searching for missing people and handing out aid. The Bush Administration too doesn't want the Burmese government restricting or taking any of the aid. No doubt some will accuse it of wanting to spy or not caring about the Burmese people - the same accusers probably also protest Burmese human rights, so are never happy.

.

Of course the World Food Programme of the UN is throwing food aid at the country, who knows how much of that will be quietly taken by the regime to keep the military fed in fear of insurrection. The United Nations, after all, is morally blind to whether a member state is a dictatorship or a free country.

.

So what SHOULD be done? Should Burma be, despite the toll, left to be, on the basis that aid will more often than not be confiscated by the military, and that any aid sustains the regime as much as the public? Is it not possible that the cyclone could weaken the regime enough that it can allow for some civil insurrection to bring it down? After all -the biggest problem Burma has is not the cyclone - the military government has impoverished, killed and imprisoned the population for decades.

.

Or should aid flow, on the basis that most Burmese have neither the means to resist the regime, and are facing certain death without food, shelter and medical help? Is it better for them to see western aid agencies and organisations giving help directly, and it is simply human benevolence to help those who can't help themselves in a time of dire need?

.

I say the latter, but conditionally. It is tragic to simply ignore what has happened, but Burma has to accept aid on the terms of those who offer it. That means if the US is willing to send in teams of experts at rescue and groups to rehabilitate destroyed villages, it does so on its terms. It means bypassing the military and if there is interference, then aid workers should leave. There is ample testimony that North Korea took western aid during the 1990s floods for high level party and military first, with many people receiving next to nothing. This can't happen in Burma. Medicins Sans Frontieres is one private aid agency that withdrew from North Korea out of frustration that it couldn't deliver assistance directly to those in need. If the Burmese authorities wont accept this, then the blood of the Burmese people will be on their hands again. Certainly the few media outlets the Burmese can access (illegally) should broadcast this loud and clear (BBC World Service and Voice of America in Burmese).

.

So if you wish to donate to aid efforts for Burma, be warned. Donate to private charities that are careful to use their own people to assist people directly, not donate to government. That means ignoring UN organisations.

.

I note also that the hosts of the Olympics this year have said nothing in their official organ about helping "Myanmar" but have faithfully reported their fellow dictatorship's news. Yes, the People's Republic of China is such a great world citizen isn't it?

Dr Cullen's logic impeccable

Around 30-40% of you still trust a fair bit of your income with this man. Would you trust him spending your money to buy food, clothes, entertainment? Would you trust him to select a partner for you? So why do you trust him to buy you a pension, insurance against sickness and unemployment, accident insurance, health care and education for your kids?

.

Just take this comment from the NZ Herald on why he justifies taking your money to buy locomotives, wagons and rail ferries "There were many benefits to the Crown being owner including that the taxpayer buyback meant "we won't be seeing profits flowing out of the country"". Why did he bother using the last five words?

.

He also said "a properly integrated rail system could not be run at a profit without some degree of subsidisation by the Government " again why use the last eight words? A profit with a subsidy is not a profit.

.

Oh and by the way, why would you trust Bill English and John Key to spend your money on exactly the same things? Especially since they wont dispose of this new taxpayer liability. Meanwhile ACT is condemning it, condemning National but not saying what it would do. What's that about? What's wrong with the "P" word Rodney?