Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
The Nazi regime did not arise ex nihilo or because of some right wing conspiracy,the Nazi Party was promoted as a German socialist party. The background is more mundane and disturbingly some things have their parallel viz local, states and federal govt today. Frederick’s Prussia of Macht and Recht expressed through the two pillars of Army and Bureaucracy became the linchpin of Bismarck’s united germany.In Germany nor France, for that matter, nothing like English Common Law had become established, the explanation ultimately rooted in the origins of `modern Europe’, the early feudal Age, gangsters who over-rode the emergence of open markets and complementary tradition of law in the wake of the end of the Roman Empire. Govt. in short, orginates in warfare and extortion , the `protected’ being rather more the ones threatened and subjugated by their new overlords.It is why the history of Europe is history of absolutist regimes , economic autarchy and rule by Govt. dictat expressed through detailed administrative control of the lives and interests of those the govts of Europe do not serve, with the exception of Switzerland backed by the well appreciated threat of govt. excersing physical violence against citizens viz criminal charges, fines, imprisonment for no compliance with the capricious dictats of govt. And, folks, this is what both the major parties of Australia have done when in office, bestowing police state powers on mere clerks like ATO and novelties like the ACCC.Last night, I listened to a summary of recent bills and legislation which increase those coercive powers,and is only consistent with measures the coalition govt. has already had passed.

It was only accidental that one was apprised of the full ramifications, if the speech is correct, of the Govt.’s IR `reform’ bills , legislation already passed and measures which have been and can be effected merely at the adminstrative level.I was feeding at the trough witha party of friends when , taking a breather heard a speaker to members of the Industrial Relations Society.

The speech was fair enough in a fresher pass level summary essay type of way. The content was illuminating, mainly because one hasn’t followed the IR measures closer than what can be gleaned from the news.I mentioned the content to some one who is a who’s who of the who’s who of the learned profession , suggesting one would blog on it, give the IR club a boot up their totalitarian pants. The distinguished who’s who commented, good idea and remarked further, the Society of Industrial relations is in need of a good booting up the buttocks too. Righto, I said, much encouraged, I will blog and be damned.So, let’s set to it, out with the heavy leather shoes and boot some butts.

The general view of the govt’s. `IR reforms’ , runs on the claim it is about freedom of contract between employees and employers. This might not be quite the case. What, to summarise the main contention put by the speaker,is being put up involves several things: in fact increasing government control over labour markets and contracts by actually increased abministration viz, detailed regulation; the speaker used the managerialese cant expression `micro-managing the work place’.

A second expression used was `third party’ , an ugly vulgar mistatment of what the speaker stated, Industrial Commission and govt. depts. and agencies who have interventionist control over actions which, to be blunt and crude, is otherwise none of their fucking business.

The telling point is, the substitution of AWAs and other such measures for IRC market fixing is just that, a mere substitution.Indeed, to cover enforcement of the new measures, the kangaroo court and its bunch of chicken oracle consultants has in any case beed given a new lease of undeserved life by being bestowed the power to enforce AWA’s.

The speaker claimed, employees are in need of `third party’ interference lest not only they be screwed by unscrupulous employers but also the only inference one can draw, the IR club regards adult Australians as infantile retards to dumb to distuingish a bad employer from one who is not. Thiss, however, overlooks, employees are not bound to employers like vassal salves , they can go work for someone else, and some do for that sort of reason. Though the force of the speaker’s comment pertained to contracts of employment which, one surrises the IR club regards as too weighty for many to comprehend.

Right what is a contract: terms; price; split of price between cash, super, leave and matters which might be peculiar to working in a particular business. In other words, cutting through gobbledygook of `enterprise bargaining’ and AWAs and IRC mandated terms, the reality on straight waged and salary jobs , employment agreements are bloody trivial document s to write up.

As for price,employees seeks though most they can earn employers the least they can but neither can dictate price. Many employers seeking labour, many seeking jobs. Next,as BrookesNews.com and VonMises contributors reiterate frequently, employers pay what the marginal value of labour to product is worth to that firm.If employees are to enjoy better returns, what is required is free open economy matched by low consuming low taxing non inflating govt so that more capital is put up and so more jobs. Moreover, capital as `lattice work of stages of production’ driven by the final use, consumption. A more prosperous people is those who demand products which require higher stages of production and thus generates beeter jobs, more opportunities and because production and consumption of goods is the definition of income, better income. Better income cannot be decreed by govt. fiat, whether by IRC club nor directly as BOB Brwonb and his bunch of commies the greens seem to believe, following Bolt’s article in the Sun on the Greens platform.

The speaker used the expression, `rule of law’ and again in a vulgar sense. He was addressing, on this line, government regulation and supporting legislation. To diabuse the Society of Industrial Relations, Government regulation and its expression, administrative control by bureaucracy, is not the rul of law, it is Govt. fiat, dictat, the beginnings of totalitarianism.Indeed , what the speaker presented is a case indicative of not only the ALP’s approach but is also the bipartisan position of the coalition parties,of one more instance of te overthrow of common law in favour of govt. dictat.Just to check, the measure raised by the govt. include, according to the speaker, the bestowal of more police powers to ATO, ACCC and any other agency used to enforce the new regime of regulation.

The above, taken with the mountain of new administraticve decrees has peculiar force, for what is being mounted is actually quite detailed control over individuals, their actions, their interests.In other words, the meassures have nothing to do with liberty.Broken down, the coalition is not about serving what freedom of contract boils down to, freedom of action, at all.If that were case, in fact the govt. would have to relinquish its accumulating coercive power and let things run with only common law judges competent to rule on conentioous contracts.

Just to check,in common law has been developed general prinicples bearing upon `unlawful contract’ , but that is not what neither major party has in view. Along with increasing numbers of the learned profession, the parties are basically treating common law as an irritating frustation to their power hungry ambitions.

I put to to Brookes.News and Von Mises Insitute, that thirst for absolute power is why, at the end of the day, the parties snear theory ( of, in this case action)in favour of `pragmatism’: pragmatism , as Bertrand Russell pointed out, is nothing but a cult of power.

The speaker pointed out, the govt. stopped short of what infact should be done, finishing of the Industrial Relations Commission altogether. The reason is contained in the measures, they require the `third party intervention’. Exceet the third party includes more police powers to both ATO and ACCC.An irony , the speaker pointed out, buyt nonethless can be made to work.

One inferred, from the remarks: if only they had consulted the industrial relations experts in the first place, the obvious would have been better handled from the start, namely `third party provisions’.Of course he would say that, for `industrial relations ‘ experts’ and the IR club the whole lot of them, make their fat livings on what is nothing but the overthrown of markets and common law, and treating all and sundry outside their all too cosy coteries as idiot serfs who must be told what to do, bossed about and treated, generally, like juveniles.

Without the extortion and racketeering called `industrial relations’ the whole IR club would have to do something productive which genuinely serves others. This is what the userers fear, someone might have the balls to kick them off their generous unearned joy ride . They have a vested interest in perpetuating something which is nothing but a sign of little tin pot dicators, and the Coalition obliges and generously, for, you see, it means more power to govt. more excuses to wield police powers against so many, more coercive power to dictate, hector and corrupt things which are none of the business of govt and the stuffed jumped up clerks in ATO and the IRC club, thugs of the unions and those companies all to content to collude with the govt. in the mistaken assumption they will do better as a consequence.

Could Australians wake up one fine Spring morning to find a full blown totalitarian regime has landed on their heads? You betcha, and each of the parties in each level government are culpable. The liberal party aint a liberaL party, it too is a socialist party along with ALP, Greens Dems and One Nation, and is doing its best in laying down the foundations for outright tyranny.