Beyond 2020_Working towards a New World Order

The great political movement of our time, is for the formation of an official world government - a global federation. Don't fight it outright please, because we need it. Fight for its correct structuring. 

There are 3 major 'missing links' in structural politics, on the highest levels. Until those links are installed, politics will always be problematic.

1. The need for a world government, with strictly specified and contained powers.

2. The need for the mass-decentralisation of our democracies. (many more nation states - much smaller).

3. Self governing, private villages.

----------------------------------------------------

1. The need for world governance. 

If the libertarians had their way the entire world would be free to do what it wants, with everyone living in a super prosperous free-market harmony. The problem is they're right that freedom induces prosperity, but wrong in their assumption that that is all we need to worry about.

With real prosperity will come an inevitable rapid population explosion, in particular within the Islamic and African worlds.

If every Muslim has the potential to actualise their ideal of about 4 to 8 children per-couple, then they will quickly breed the rest of us out of existence (my video here). The hard truth is population must be balanced to resources, when and as required. This will take a given level of world government in the end. Population stability is a global game and it will finally require global cooperation and enforcement.

We can't forget that without active population control, we can then only get passive population control, eventually, and that would be ugly.

There's also the need for global environmental defense, and probably the need for a degree of fertility control to the end of resisting dysgenics. The latter is an incredibly sensitive topic of course, and I talk about it here, but it's irresponsible not to ask the question on eugenics. Dysgenics may well be a long-term threat to our species. It is also ultimately a global issue as we are in fact one great gene pool. There are no more islands in this world.

Building a global government, if we do, should begin with nations that are not clearly backwards, and then it should expand out from there. That is, it should only accommodate countries that know what basic human rights are, such as not abusing children with brutal circumcision, for example.

The current United Nations has become contaminated by giving voice to nations that are backwards, and this has eroded the UN's credibility. I believe we need to start again with a new organisation. The United Western Nations (of the world) sounds like a good idea to me.

Backwards nations should not be allowed to join the Western union until they have raised their game. Until then, they may need to be controlled to a degree, to the end of enforcing the most basic human rights, fertility management, and basic environmental defense.

Note: I know this looks arrogant, but when nations are committing sins on the level of chronic culturalised child abuse and gross environmental damage, etc, and refuse to reform in spite of the facts, then there's a place for so-called arrogance. In my view, the serious violation of human rights - and ultimate necessity - are issues that go beyond the geo-political abstractions of national borders, cultures and religions. On these levels, I believe outside nations have the right to take invasive action as required. 

However, absolutely no world government should be given power to intrude on domestic policy that does not need to be their concern. The strictest of constitutions must be laid down to ensure that this does not happen.

Also vital, is the freedom of nations to abandon the western union without undue consequence of sanctions. This is very important to ensure that any given world government can be held to account by the collective, and ultimately abandoned and dissolved as required. The threat of "mass-Brexits" should always be on the world governments mind. To reinforce this, it could be a good idea to mandate opt-out referendums say every five years, for member states. A bit like an ongoing performance review with consequences.

We should never forget that positions of power are notorious for attracting people who want power for its own sake. Again, major institutional protections are essential.

2. The need for the mass decentralisation of democracies. 

My included image below says it all. It's foolish to think that democracy on its own is the way forward, as it only protects people from the very worst excesses of government. The truth is, pure democracy equates to power to the propagandist at least as much as power to the people.

By far the best way to hold any institute to account is to provide alternatives. If we introduce the dynamic of real competition between democracies then the power of foot-voting will hold them all to account.

For example, we can let communists build their communist ideal if they believe in it; and when they fail, quickly and badly, it will induce them to immediately reform. Let them learn the hard way, fast, and be done with their economic naivety. And let them make an example for the rest of us to note and learn from.

Political decentralisation complimented with foot-voting will fix any bad idea quickly, and the need for long-winded political dramas will be put to an end. (Indeed, decentralisation will promote any good idea quickly as well).

In the competitive commercial world, failure is comparatively fast and swift, with reform following immediately and with results that are not too devastating for anyone in the long run. It can be that way for democracies as well. There will be no more Venezuela's with this structure, and it will be the end of much of the childish politics as we know it.

3. Self governing, private villages.

You don't have real freedom until you can choose your world - socially and structurally. When you can build and live in your own village, by your own select ideal, you have a kind of freedom that has become largely alien to us in the modern western world. My included video below is a comprehensive expression on this idea.

We are a tribal animal, not a mass-society animal, and if we want strong communities then we need to let them develop - bottom up. Not as a prescriptive government project, but as a commercial freedom born from natural demand.

However, the 'village' political dimension is the least of our concerns for building an ultimate ideal political structure, because if I'm right then the private village will develop all on its own, just as soon as our democracies are decentralised and forced to compete.

When honour-real-demand-or-fail is the name of the game, like it is in the commercial world, then what is best can only win in the end. So if the private village is best, your nation state will have no choice but to facilitate them to hold onto its people.

----------------------------------------------------

A final note.

As I have been interested in politics and public policy for a long time, you can ask...Why do I think about taboo topics like population control and, God help us, eugenics? The answer is because I have no right to not think about these things, if I am to have a credible opinion on where I believe our political world needs to go.

Is dysgenics a real possibility? Yes. Is overpopulation a real possibility? Yes. Ouch, I have to look at these things then.

So what, to the best of my mind, should be done to address these issues? I have of course written my answers here and more comprehensively elsewhere on my blog. But again my point is, I have no right to make policy suggestions as though these sensitive concerns do not exist. If I worked like that then I would be just as illegitimate as the extremist-Left that believes in, and promotes, policy that cosmetically looks good though in spite of hard facts. I will be better than that, and so should all of us be better than that, because a failure to be realistic is simply dysfunctional and ultimately dangerous.

Confronting the Islam issue

The Muslim Brotherhood, a global Islamic fundamentalist organisation, invented the term 'Islamophobia' to suppress the conversation that the West needs to have. Sadly, Islamophobia-shaming has had a lot of success. Even with the best of intentions too many people are now afraid of talking about Islam.

However, we can get around the Islamophobia trick by asserting the simple truth. The truth that our common enemy is the radicalisation process - not Islam or Muslims as such.

No one halfway sane can ignore the fact that Islamic radicalisation is a real and dangerous thing. And no one can call you an Islamophobe for simply asserting the obvious, that far. But we need to get in early with the assertion before we're successfully labelled Islamophobic...and then hater, bigot, racist, etc, because once that happens no one is listening. Hence, as you can see my soundbite is right there at the top of the page. This is where I'm at - not Islamophobia.

So let's get to it.

How then does the radicalisation process happen? How do benign Muslims get turned into dangerous extremists? I'm not an expert myself and I don't need to be. My job is to open the book before it gets closed. From here, I will simply list some factors that, to the best of my mind, contribute to the radicalisation process.

1. The cult-dynamic. 

The hallmark of a cult is isolation. Seperating yourself into a group where others are seen fully as 'outsiders', and to the point where the dehumanisation of outsiders can occur. In a cult, interaction with outsiders is suppressed to ensure that the in-group sees things only through their own internal eyes, making cultural reform difficult if not impossible, and giving leaders within the cult perverse power over their group.

The cult-dynamic, as I understand it, is more likely to occur where too many Muslims are brought into a host nation too soon, so they tend to create isolated communities or even 'no go' zones. This is a great foundation to breed extremism.

Another way to facilitate the cult-dynamic is to legalise the burqa. This is a direct way of enforcing the interpersonal isolation of Muslim women from the wider society.

The solutions to this problem are obvious. Compulsory non-Islamic schooling for young Muslims (leave religious studies at home). No burqas. Modest rates of Muslim immigration. In other words ensure that progressive assimilation happens - not isolation.

2. A lack of transparency in Islamic teachings.

Mosques should be monitored to ensure that we do not have extremist teachings occurring. Islam should have nothing to hide, right? We should not expect too many complaints.

3. Study the Quran and Muhammad's life.

(Mohammed's life is the example that all Muslims are supposed to emulate, and the example by which the Quran should be interpreted).

It may be an uncomfortable truth that following Islam to the letter means acting like ISIS, when the time is right. I'm not totally sure on this. But we must be prepared to study Islam without politically correct blinkers. The truth is what it is, and we need to accept it be what it may.

4. Psychological status of the people getting involved with extremist Islam. 

People who have been seriously abused in childhood will be more prone to radicalisation, because they're looking for the family they never had (cult), are simple minded and are filled with rage.

We need to look carefully at the kind of people we're importing into our nation. Have they been heavily damaged?

--------------------------------------------------

These are just some insights. The point is, that this is what we need to be talking about. And again, we cannot let extremists (or foolish people) stop us from having this important conversation.

The people who have the most to lose from our failure to talk, are the moderate Muslims most of all. Just one Islamic terror attack in New Zealand and their lives will never be the same. And that alone would help to drive them into isolation.

Stopping any given potential for radicalisation today, with the right policies, right now, is far easier than dealing with an extremist mess tomorrow. It makes sense to talk - today.

                                           -Andrew Atkin

Should we all be working for ourselves? Reforming professional culture

The proper role of government is to support the free market - not replace it.

New Zealand's current Labour-led government, driven by union interests, is doing nasty things to employment law which serve to advantage a few (select unions) in the short term, at the long-term expense of nearly everyone. However the situation may not be as depressing as it appears. The final result of over-prescriptive regulations, between employer and employee, could be a kind of progressive backfire as employees option to sell their labour as private contractors, only. This could trigger an excellent evolution.

The model that I'm thinking of is the same as what we have today, with tradesmen. Many tradesmen today link to a website which acts as a hub for people looking for a worker (example here). The customer search is efficient, and examples of the tradesman's work can be viewed online, with customer feedback also presented.

This is the free market in action, at its best, backed by the internet which serves as an excellent communion tool and, so importantly, a medium for comprehensive transparency. People win the reputations they deserve, positive and negative, which directly impacts what they can charge for their labour. As always, quality goes up and costs go down, as the performance-pressure is on (I must say, the opposite situation of a state monopoly,).

So here is the question. Why not have all workers act as private contractors? Why not have a colourful open CV selling yourself, online, based within a go-to hub for employment so you can be continuously headhunted? Your open CV would have pictures, video presentations of yourself and maybe your work.

The real question of course, is what would the effect of this be...if everyone is to effectively work for themselves and on the same level of a tradesman?

Well for a start, you would be able to set your own wage (for any given job) as the legal minimum becomes irrelevant. Technically you are a business - not an employee. This is great for people who would otherwise be forced out of the job market, such as the only commonly skilled, disabled, or slow. Increased labour participation of course equates to higher productivity, which is the foundation of general prosperity (carving up cakes never works - growing cakes always works).

I think it's particularly good for the elderly. For example, if they can work 15 hours a week on a low performance-pressure wage of, say, $10 per-hour, giving them an extra $120 after-tax adding to their pension, then that could be an invaluable monetary boost while staying in contact with others, and keeping physically and mentally active for health.

It's also great for people who are working part-time, or otherwise not at all, yet who want to boost their income a little with their skills. Mowing lawns, gardening, homecare, etc, or basic mechanical work?...anything. Once the system is in place, anyone can broadly market themselves with a few clicks on their website, to update their profile.

As for employee-employer relationships, it would work wonders. Employers would be under constant pressure to respect wanted staff, because if the employer tolerates abuse or other problems in their workplace, they can then know that all their current contractors need to do is maybe lower their price a little, on their open CV's, and they will have others offering them roles elsewhere - maybe immediately. They can be constantly 'tempted' with an easy transition.

[Note, it should be law that no employer can demand that a given contractor cannot directly advertise themselves to other potential employers, online, via the main site. The competitive dynamic needs to be protected].

Transparency must go both ways:

We should also make it mandatory for contractors to assess their employers, via a government online survey, with the results displayed online so we can achieve the [currently missing] proper workplace transparency, which will then drive every employer to be sure that their workplace is relating to their staff as they should. It should be costly for an employer to fail to respect staff...

-Employers that tolerate abuse of any kind would find that they cannot get good staff at a good price, as they develop their reputation which is openly and immediately accessible to anyone, via a single click on a screen. Bluntly, who would accept a job with an employer who has "a-hole" written all over their open assessment? You see what I mean.

[Note, with an accountability system like this the employer must have their right-of-reply included, and rankings should be taken as medians, not averages, to defend against unfair assessments. Needless to say the system would need to be developed carefully, with the template probably created as a state service. If an employer can be a referee for an employee, then surely it should work the other way around too? In both cases employers and employees should be able to present an open right-of-reply in response to any given assessment].

Concluding:

Transparent, accountable, free markets with plenty of competition are by far the best form of protectionism in the workplace. It empowers employers to quickly remove inappropriate workers, and workers to quickly remove themselves from inappropriate employers.

The far greater flexibility, along with an absolute minimum state regulation, makes for more commercial investment and likewise rapid economic development (replacing handsaws with chainsaws, basically. See here) as New Zealand becomes a better place to invest in.

But what about job security? Being an honourable contractor is all the security you should need. No company wants to lose good workers, and with this system you will find it won't so much be about finding work, but simply the price you can charge.

-In saying this, sometimes middle-managers want to get rid of highly talented workers, as they may be seen as competitors or personal profesional threats. But I predict this can and would change. The enhanced need for internal transparency within companies (driven by the need to quickly identify and solve problems, to avoid developing poor open assessments) would clean out a lot of that kind of politics. Abuses of power would be dealt with quickly as they would naturally need to be.

As employers must compete hard for staff, the market will precisely decide the prices (wages). As the system induces more rapid economic development, you will find that wages alround steadily rise. Productively growth is the universal bottomline for prosperity.

And finally, as I stressed previously, we will evolve workplaces that ensure people are happy. More people will go to work smiling - not dreading - because an employers failure to respect people will come at a hefty price. So they will. And also, employers will be free to remove toxic contractors quickly, as we're using accountable markets to make things work like they should, which is far more effective than state regulations that too often make things worse, not better, as they are notorious for unintended consequences.

Employers in general should have no problem with this change. The new demands that they would tolerate are the same demands that their competitors must tolerate. All it does is change the game a little, and as I believe only to good effect. There's nothing for employers to fear unless they should be afraid.

However one key change we should see, is employers approaching prospective employees when seeking new staff, and not so much the other way around. Employers will search for contractors and make offers, as opposed to openly advertising for staff to come to them. It would be a headhunting game, like when people seek out a tradesman to build a new addition to their home.

Ultimately contractor and employer relationships will become more mature, professional and progressive. All staff (including cleaners!) will predictably be treated like co-professional, and employers will simply be seen as what they are - a contractors given customer. It would, hopefully, be the end to the parent/child relationship that we see in New Zealand employment culture today.

Another reason why we should all work for ourselves, or simply start thinking like this, is that the administrative side can be taken care of seamlessly via the internet. There's no [theoretical] need to fuss to be self-employed. Once you're on the system, taking on different jobs should typically be as simple as logging-in and logging-out, with a few clicks of an icon.

                                            -Andrew Atkin

Related Posts:

Achieving meritocracy (here):

Building training videos (particularly good for new contractors): (here)