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.

The good and ill of social media: a parable

In the wake of the London riots, UK Prime Minster David Cameron has proposed to ban social media to prevent the organisation of social unrest via platforms such as Blackberry, Twitter and Facebook.

Many have pointed out the hypocrisy when comparing Cameron's approach to that of Arab dictators during their own uprisings.

This reminded me of a parable (originally from the middle-east, I think) that I was told when I was a child that those that would ban social media should pay heed to, before considering taking such a drastic step.

(I'm doing this from memory, so to those who know this story, sorry if the rendition is not the best)

The Best and the Worst Meal in the World.

There once was a young man who was known for his  many skills and his wisdom despite his tender years and because he was so wise the King had bestowed upon him great rank and privilege.

This caused a great deal of jealousy in the court and many of the courtiers openly questioned the King's judgement in promoting this young man. The King's advisors told the King that he ought to set the young man a task to prove his wisdom the quell the rumours and innuendo in the court.

The King pondered what task would properly test his young protege's wisdom and prove to his courtiers that his judgement was sound in his promotion of his young charge.

After much deliberation the King decided upon a task that would prove his protege's skill and wisdom. He summoned his young protege and told him that to prove his wisdom and skill, he wanted him to cook the best meal in the world for the King and his courtiers.

The young man went away and pondered what would prove both his wisdom and skill and decided upon a dish of ox tongue. He delicately seasoned the tongue and cooked it to perfection and presented the dish to the King and his courtiers. All agreed that indeed it was a delicious dish and asked the young man why he considered it the best dish in the world.

The young man answered: "Well Sirs, the tongue can create things of great beauty: poetry, stories, it can be use to inspire men and to bring them to tears, its by the work of our tongue that Man creates his dominion over the beasts."

The courtiers decided that this was indeed a wise answer but were still not convinced and so they set him a further task: to make the worst meal in the world.

The young man went away and pondered what would prove both his wisdom and skill and decided, once again, upon a dish of ox tongue. He delicately seasoned the tongue and cooked it to perfection and presented the dish to the King and his courtiers.

The King was surprised: "you have served us the same dish! How can this be both the best and the worst dish in the world?"

The young man answered: "Well, just as the tongue can produce things of great beauty, it can also create things of great evil. It can destroy men's reputations, inspire men to great evil, be used to invoke jealousy and rage, be used to slander and undermine and that its why it is also the worst dish in the world."

The King and his courtiers were surprised by the young man's wisdom and no-one in the court questioned the young man's elevation to such high station again.

***

In the same way Social Media can be used for great good or ill, so before cutting out his citizen's digital tongues to prevent further ill, Cameron and his ilk should also realise the great good that they will also be extinguishing.

The new gatekeepers- internet freedom has a price but no way to pay

Much has been made of the internet being the great 'leveler'. Citizen journalists and bloggers have challenged the model of traditional publishing, file-sharing has challenged the business models of the music and movie industry (and here, I mean not just file-sharing that infringes copyright but file-sharing as a distribution mechanism) and open source software has challenged the models of software development and distribution. Each of these mechanisms have removed, to some extent, the gatekeepers of content production and distribution, allowing an expansion of the sharing of ideas, content and culture. In the post-wikileaks world, the removal of the traditional gatekeepers of media and government has thrown the spotlight on government practices and the ability of the internet to spread information, culture and ideas has led to significant pressures being placed upon government (including, some would argue, the fall of several governments).

The reaction of government has predictably been to attempt to crack down on the internet through both censorship laws and the expansion of laws that further empower the private sector to move against the leveling influence of the internet (such as expanded copyright laws and domain seizure laws). In this case, at least citizens have the nominal right to reject these laws by excercising their rights at the ballot-box (and yes, practically this  is more difficult due to entrenched interests and money politics, but that's a rant for another day) and rejecting the government's intrusions.

However, more worryingly, a new danger to internet freedom has raised its ugly head and begun to exert its influence.  Another set of gatekeepers, ones that have not yet succumbed to the leveling influence of the internet, have begun to flex their muscle as gatekeepers of content and information and as these are private entities citizens have no way to counter their power.

I am referring to the financial gatekeepers of the internet. The duopoly of Visa and Mastercard (along with PayPal to a lesser extent) have begun to exert their power over the financial flows to entities and websites that they deem to be undesirable - and governments, recognising this power, have sought to use these gateways to censor and undermine websites and entities that threaten their power.

The most obvious recent case is that of PayPal, MasterCard and Visa halting payments to Wikileaks under the spurious auspice of 'violating their terms and conditions', something which the KKK or NAMBLA somehow don't do. It is quite obvious why the payments were halted - 'pressure' from the US government. There was no actual legal power upon which the government could rely, so they turned to the gatekeepers to block finances and attempt to hamstring Wikileaks. It was a frightening display of State power combined with the power of the gatekeepers brought to bear on an organisation which, to date, has not been shown to break any laws.

The UK government has also discovered that using the gatekeepers is easier than having  to pass legislation - since legislation has to go through that pesky transparency process known as parliamentary scrutiny.

In this case, the content industries, through their industry group IFPI, have bypassed the legislative step entirely and gone straight to enforcement - using  the police to protect their private interests through the police's "economic crime directive" which is ostensibly to combat fraud rather than copyright infringement. Basically, the police verify that the site appears to offer unlicensed copyrighted material and hand the details to Visa and MasterCard to effectively cut of the finances of these sites. There is no recourse, no appeal and no judicial oversight. Whether the accused have violated Visa or MasterCard's 'terms and conditions' is a matter for Visa and MasterCard and not for the courts.

It is not difficult to see this model being extended to other types of activities that either governments or big business find undesirable - they've already done it to Wikileaks. It is in a way similar to the corporate strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) suit - a legal threat to close down criticism - but at least with a SLAPP suit there is a way to fight it in court. A financial SLAPP from Visa and MasterCard is almost impossible to defeat - it is their terms and conditions and as private entity they can choose who to do business with, or not.

The dominance of these financial gatekeepers represents a dangerous bottleneck to internet freedom. Although we still may be able to publish and distribute information - the ability to finance this distribution also forms an important part of this freedom.

It is often said that "freedom has a price", the problem is that it may become increasingly difficult to find a place to pay.

Multiculturalism, cultural relativism and "political correctness gone mad"

David Cameron's Speech earlier this month appears to have sparked a flurry of commentary from the Australian Right about how multiculturalism has gone wrong here as well.  Sen. Corey Bernadi has also written a piece that has been picked up by the media which echoes some of Cameron's sentiments combining them with a bit of racism for a unique Australian perspective.

I'll start by dealing with Mr. Cameron's speech first, mainly because it's the sanest and does express some subtlety before delving briefly into Sen. Bernadi's racist rant.

Mr. Cameron's main thrust is that the "soft" left's articulation of the causes of extremism is incorrect and the soft left position has resulted in a "passively tolerant society [that] says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone", which has led in turn to segregation and isolationism encouraged by State multiculturalism. Mr. Cameron's  argument is that society needs to champion liberal democratic "values" as part of a national identity.

The funny thing is, this is just the sort of thing that some in the Left have been arguing for years. Cameron accuses the supporters of multiculturalism of preventing debate on issues and hampering efforts to confront some of the egregious cultural practices and beliefs in some communities.

According to Cameron:

"when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them.  But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them."

This is, of course, the sort of complete bollocks that the Right loves to trot out - it's actually the articulate way of expressing the Bogan battlecry "political correctness gone mad".

The problem is that when the Left argues for a particular liberal value, the argument is often articulated in a universal way. For example: "sexism, in all its forms, is unacceptable". Its never articulated with the provsio "unless its OK in X culture" - however this is just what Cameron is accusing.

The Right, however, has no problem in doing exactly the same thing - playing a bit o' relativism.  Confronting sexism in a cultural group is admirable to the Right because "they treat women badly in their culture", however universalising the value to apply to everyone (for example, policies to combat sexism in the workplace) is "political correctness gone mad" because hey, the boys were just joking...right?

So which liberal "values" are we really championing here? It sounds like the sort of relativsim that comes out the "clash of civilisations" ideology, ie. that a particular culture is unable to incorporate liberal values.

Which brings me away from Cameron's more reasonable argument to Sen. Bernardi's rant.

Bernardi argues that the multicultural acceptance of Islam "has resulted in a cultural clash that has brought almost unprecedented levels of social unrest ". Further arguing that Muslims cannot be integrated into a liberal democratic culture - even going so far as to quote that paragon of liberal values and tolerance Lee Kwan Yu.

Sen. Bernadi agues that Australia must do something before its "too late" but nowhere in his rant does Sen. Bernardi propose any solution. Which makes one wonder, if Islam is impossible to integrate and as dangerous as Berardi suggests what could possibly be the solution to them living within our midst? For fear of Godwin's Law I won't continue to speculate.

Ultimately this debate from Cameron and Bernardi is a cheap resort to petty Nationalism in the guise of liberal "values". There is nothing wrong with championing liberal values in society to combat extremism, in fact, its admirable. However, the Right has to understand that this means applying those values universally to our own culture as well as to other cultural groups within our society - without the incessant yells of "political correctness". The universal application of these values is what will construct a truly liberal democratic, multicultural society rather than pandering to petty Nationalism to undermine multiculturalism as a policy.