Billionaires and Battlers

Labor back bencher, Kelvin Thompson, has recently become embroiled in the latest round of Australia's supposed "class war" by daring to suggest that the $50 million taxpayer funding of Australia's F1 Grand Prix might better be better spent on hospitals than funding the lavish lifestyle of Bernie Eccelstone's daughter.

The response from Eccelstone was typical of the recent responses of billionaires to criticism - that democratically elected representatives should resign for daring to criticise those of the moneyed elite. Similar to Clive Palmer's dummy spit to Wayne Swan's article in The Monthly, Ecclestone became indignant and rather than address the criticism, engaged in ad hominem attacks as if somehow the mere fact that he was rich was a shield to any sort of criticism.

Palmer and Eccelstone have attacked their critics variously as "communists" and "destroying the wealth of this country and robbing our children of their opportunities". They have both forgotten that it is the stability of the democratic civil society that has enabled their wealth including, in Palmer's case, the ability to exploit publicly owned assets. Yet the billionaire's view is that they are entitled to their position, and their position is immune to criticism. Those that criticise them, regardless of the fact that they may be democratically elected, "should be fired".

These indignant reactions to criticism are typical of the 1% - they do not see themselves as participants in a society that goes deeper than mere tax-deductable expressions of philanthropy. They see themselves as entitled to a special place in the operation of that society, free from its responsibilities - an unfettered plutocracy, geared to exploit.

We have seen the results of when the 1% are unfettered, first in the 1980's when Reagan removed lending regulations on savings and loans banks that eventually resulted in a financial crisis, and secondly in the 2000's when Bush similarly removed restrictions on banks that resulted once again in financial crisis. In both instances, the 1% were happy to use the removal of regulation to exploit those that were most at risk in society to the detriment of all, particularly the wealth generating middle-class which is now being squeezed out of existence by a rampant 1%.

The disproportionate intrusion of the billionaires to undermine the civil society by the mere size of their wealth is an expression of a sense of arrogant entitlement from those who do not think that a £1 million Mexican crystal bathtub is a vulgar extravagance. A sense of entitlement that was built out of the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980's.

Margaret Thatcher's declaration in the 1980's that "there is no such thing as society" became the rallying cry of neo-conservatives around the world. Neo-conservative governments began to remove the progressive regulation and taxation systems that had limited the excesses of the rich under the theory that the civil society was unnecessary and that the self-interest of individuals would be sufficient.

Ironically, these conservatives decried the entitlement culture and assumed that the emphasis on the individual would necessarily lead to a "trickle down" of wealth to those less fortunate.

Thatcher herself recognised the entitlement culture, stating: "People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

However, both Thatcher and Reagan saw those obligations (including the tax burden) as rightly falling upon the poor and middle classes and not similarly upon the rich. The view was that by the very fact that the rich were wealthy, they had fulfilled any obligation to society. This position unravelled the social contract and led to the excesses that caused the financial crises. Far from these crises causing a re-evaluation of this position, Thatcher, Reagan and later Bush continued with their policies further squeezing the middle classes. This has led to an entitlement culture growing amongst the rich - that regardless of the damage caused by their exploitation, government should be there to pick up the pieces at taxpayers expense.

In the past, this sort of sense of entitlement from the rich was met with derision from both the working and middle classes because it was seen for what it was - a desire to exploit society for reasons of self-interest. The institutions of the civil society placed proportionate obligations on everyone.

However, the structures of the civil society have been eroded by successive neo-conservative governments, which has created a society built on exploitation and an indignant sense of entitlement.

The removal of these institutions by conservative governments has led to  the "trickle down" of the exploitative sense of the entitlement to the middle class such that the billionaire's dilemma can be related to by those who are less well off. Accusations of "class warfare" resonate with the middle class, even though the warfare is actually being perpetuated upon them from above.

In Australia, this sense of entitlement has been generated through the explosion in middle class welfare under the Howard government. Just as the 1% believe that they are entitled to be unfettered by responsibilities to society, the middle class believe they are entitled to subsidy-fueled mortgages, private health rebates, subsidised private schools and the like, regardless of the exploitative effect on civil society. In fact, when governments have tried to make these "entitlements" progressive, it has been met with howls of "class warfare".

We have become too relaxed and comfortable, demanding our share of the trough rather than accepting our responsibility to engage with our obligations to society. We instead have fallen to the cheap popularism of slogan inspired "comfort".

This is why the accusation of class warfare has such resonance. In the same way that the billionaires see criticism of their extravagant unsustainable lifestyles as unfair, the middle classes see criticism of their entitlement to an unsustainable subsidy as equally unfair.

The exploitation of the unravelling of civil society is most pronounced by the 1%, who lobby for more changes that entrench their influence and power, but it can also be seen by the subsidy demanding "Howard battlers" who parrot the demands of the 1% even as their own standards of living are eroded.

This exploitative culture has thoroughly distorted the economy, such that everyone looks to Government to provide the conditions by which they can exploit society - rather than to provide conditions under which society thrives. The rampant individualism set in motion in the Thatcher and Regan eras has engendered the exploitation culture - a culture that led us to the global financial crisis and a culture that has created a crisis for the civil society.

Sceptics and Ideologues

Scientific scepticism (or rational scepticism) is the practice of questioning or doubting the veracity of conclusions that lack empirical evidence or rely on non-reproducable experimentation. For example, the Berkely Earth Project set out to test climatologists research:

"Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record."

-From Berkeley Earth Project FAQ

The project took a sceptical approach to the earth temperature measurement to test some of the assertions made against climatologists. This independent analysis of both the data used by the IPCC and the arguments put by critics of climate change is an example of a sceptical, scientific method of analysis.

In contrast, an ideologue is a partisan advocate of a particular position or theory - for example [Emphasis mine]:

"Climate change sceptic Ian Plimer's book "How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents and Punters" arms children with 101 questions to challenge their teachers...

The 250-page book includes a list of questions intended to embarrass poorly prepared teachers."

Plimer and his denialist friends are very fond of using the title of "sceptic" because the term lends them some sort of scientific credibility. However, Plimer is not a sceptic, he is an ideologue and his book is pure ideology.

It is little surprise that he got one of Australia's most ideologically-driven leaders to launch it.

Perspectives on the death penalty

There has been justifiable outrage today at the state sanctioned killing of Troy Davis by the State of Georgia, particularly surrounding the strength of the case against him. People have been rightly outraged about the fact that a potentially innocent man has been put to death. There were significant questions surrounding the reliability of evidence (and how that evidence was gathered) that was adduced during trial including the lack of a murder weapon and the over-reliance on eyewitness testimony - some of which was recanted by those witnesses.

I want to juxtaposition this case with another - that of Lawrence Brewer. Lawrence Brewer was a white-supremacist  who was convicted of killing James Byrd Jr. by tying him to the back of his pickup and dragging him along an asphalt road. According to forensic evidence Byrd remained alive for some time during the dragging and was only finally killed when he hit a culvert which severed his arm and head. Police found 75 places along the road that contained Byrd's remains.

Brewer and his accomplices continued to drag Byrd's torso for another mile or so before dumping his body.

At trial, significant evidence was adduced that proved beyond reasonable doubt that Brewer and his accomplices were guilty. Brewer and one of his accomplices were sentenced to death (another accomplice was given life in prison). During his stay in gaol, Brewer never showed any remorse and even said that "he'd do it all again". Brewer was killed by the State on the same day as Troy Davis.

If you are against the death penalty you must accept that the outcome of Brewer's case is as much a tragedy as Davis', even though the differences in how we may view the guilt or innocence or moral culpability of each are stark. In both of these cases, regardless of the action, evidence, guilt or innocence; the outcome, that of State sanctioned killing, is wrong because it deprives us collectively of our humanity.

"A Hanging", an essay by George Orwell (poignantly published on the ABC's Drum today) captures the inhumanity of execution. It is this inhumanity that we must remember, even when confronted with the callous viciousness of Brewer's acts.

"It was about forty yards to the gallows. I watched the bare brown back of the prisoner marching in front of me. He walked clumsily with his bound arms, but quite steadily, with that bobbing gait of the Indian who never straightens his knees. At each step his muscles slid neatly into place, the lock of hair on his scalp danced up and down, his feet printed themselves on the wet gravel. And once, in spite of the men who gripped him by each shoulder, he stepped slightly aside to avoid a puddle on the path.

It is curious, but till that moment I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide. This man was not dying, he was alive just as we were alive. All the organs of his body were working -- bowels digesting food, skin renewing itself, nails growing, tissues forming -- all toiling away in solemn foolery. His nails would still be growing when he stood on the drop, when he was falling through the air with a tenth of a second to live. His eyes saw the yellow gravel and the grey walls, and his brain still remembered, foresaw, reasoned -- reasoned even about puddles. He and we were a party of men walking together, seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding the same world; and in two minutes, with a sudden snap, one of us would be gone--one mind less, one world less."

Regardless of the actions of a person, they are still just that: a person. No different from you or I in their personhood.

The moral value of a person derives from their personhood, the fact that they are a person, not just a collective set of moral actions¹. It is why we rightly sanction those that try to use a victim's actions (whether they are immoral or even illegal) as an excuse for crimes against their person.

It is why we legally recognise that the body is not just mere property and has value above its economic worth - because the body is an intrinsic part of what makes us a person. To treat a person as an object that can be extinguished by the State diminishes the State's value of all people.

The execution of a person by what should be an extension of our collective humanity, the justice system, is a great wrong that diminishes us all. All persons have a moral value, it is why we view the interference with the person as a great moral (and legal)  wrong and why we should reject the death penalty as a barbaric penalty discarded to unenlightened times.

And we should reject the death penalty's effect on our own collective humanity, diminishing us and bringing us down collectively to the level of those which we seek to sanction. Regardless of the actions of the person, we must recognise each of us as a person. We are all part of humanity and we should rally against its diminution - the death penalty undermines our humanity in this way. The famous lines from poet John Donne in 1624 articulate it well:

No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

----------------------
¹ I understand that there are utilitarian arguments that refute the idea of intrinsic moral value as the utilitarian looks at the consequences of actions for their utility. However, many utilitarians are also against the death penalty because the general consequences to society reduce overall utility - its an argument and discussion for another article.

Freedom from speech

It was Voltaire who said (paraphrased): "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" in his defence of the importance of freedom of expression. However, he did not go on to say "I'll defend to the death your right to not be criticised when you say something stupid" which appears to be the instant reaction that comes from the right-wing commentariat every time they are subjected any criticism of their views. Often this criticism is framed as somehow interfering with their right to free speech (although they are very happy to dole out criticism of other's views).

In Australia, this attitude was hardened during the Howard years, particularly during the rise of One Nation. Comments criticising the idiotic statements by Hanson were countered by the phrase "political correctness" (see previous blog post). In fact, it was Howard himself that lent credence to this position by commenting that the expression of these views showed that a "pall of political correctness" had been lifted from Australia.

Since then, the right has become emboldened to expect that their commentary will go unchallenged as the mere mention of "political correctness" along with other right-wing favourites such as accusations of "left-wing bias", "chattering classes" and "chardonnay-sipping lefties" can defeat even the most structured and compelling of arguments.

In fact, any criticism at all is construed as the inherent left-wing bias of the media that in some way is out to gag those poor commentators of the right - who, of course, don't get any coverage for their views.

The recent offensive comments by Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby have added a new excuse to the lexicon of right-wing commentary: "the vitriol of twitter". Indeed, according to Jim the offensive comments should have been allowed to pass uncritically as they were just a reflection of his views and those of "older diggers" who had come to not recognise the Australia in which they lived. Wallace accused [video] a small cabal of "twitter activists" who sought to "manipulate the media" of taking his offensive comments out of context. So it appears that "twitter activists" can be added to "chardonnay-sippers, "inner-city latte drinkers" "political correctness" and "chattering classes" as pejorative terms that the right can use to defeat any argument or criticism.

Free-speech is a nebulous thing to the right-wing commentariat. It is something that they should enjoy without criticism or having to defend their comments in any way. It only extends to things they agree with and things that they don't should be censored.

So although we may take Voltaire's words to heart and attempt to defeat stupid comments with reasoned argument (or reasonable criticism), the right (and in particular the Christian right), continue to use pejorative accusations to howl down anything with which they don't agree.

In the end, maybe it is Voltaire's famous prayer that ultimately explains the right's continual making of indefensible, idiotic comments and their outrage at the criticism that follows:

"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: "O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!" God granted it."