Nice piece

Great piece, Nick. I was glad to be reminded again of Orwell's essays. And that reminded me further of a long argument with a colleague in the US about simplicity of language: he felt that there were propositions that could not be expressed simply, and I felt that if they couldn't be expressed simply one probably didn't understand what one was trying to propose. We agreed to differ.

If one can express the argument in mathematics that does provide a way forward. But most of the things we want to say about politics and society don't lend themselves easily to that mechanism — or if they can be so transformed, the cost is a nest of assumptions that take it all away from the real world.

Repeat:

...The strength of Democracy is in openness, the strength of Capitalism is in lies and evasion. Unfortunately for the Western Democracies, they exhibit an elite political class focused and financed on Capitalist gain.

...The fundamental tools of Democracy, the public service, have been usurped by lies and spin fresh from the fields of Capitalist ethics.

...With Capitalism nothing can be trusted I am afraid.

Great piece, Nick. Your best so far I reckon.

Diver Dan
“Misleading or deceptive conduct” and “conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive” are illegal under the Trade Practices Act, and similar legislation.

But only “in trade or commerce” – not in politics or government!! Blatant lying – such as we routinely see from our PMs – is normal, routine. And why wouldn’t it be if we have no legal remedy against it?

Like in the war-time defence of Singapore, your guns are pointing in exactly the wrong direction.

Don
“most of the things we want to say about politics and society don't lend themselves easily to that mechanism”

We still have the ability to use logic to identify axioms, valid deductions and valid conclusions. An example of an axiom in respect of societyl or politics would be “all human action involves preferring one thing to another”. Either you agree, or you deny it “No it doesn’t!” – in which case you perform a self-contradiction and the proposition is axiomatic.

When you look for them, there are actually lots of such axiomatic propositions about human action, society and politics.

Logic ain’t everything, I admit, but it suffices to disprove with the same confidence we repose in mathematics, when political and social propositions are definitely wrong. By the same token, if a premise is axiomatic, and deductions therefrom are logically valid, then we are not entitled to resile from the logical conclusion, no matter how fondly we hold the opinion it disproves.

The problem is that VERY MANY of the propositions about politics and society that we commonly hear, are capable of categorical, not merely probabilistic disproof.

This is in fact the position of all propositions to the effect that governmental interventions provide society with net benefits: on analysis they turn out to be logically indefensible, just as we have seen in the recent thread on single mothers, and Nick’s earlier thread on money and banking: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14670 .

...they (Western Democracies), exhibit an elite political class focused and financed on Capitalist gain.

...Mr Citizen is "closed-out" of the processes of Democracy and plundered by Capitalist greed: Greed describes the obsessional focus on ever escalating corporate profits usurping social responsibilities... my point! Under this regime legitimate Democracy is dead.

...When governments build political towers based on the "corporate model", why are those Governments ethically different to their corporate brothers?

"...When governments build political towers based on the "corporate model", why are those Governments ethically different to their corporate brothers?"

Not much of an argument in favour of democracy, or government management of the economy, is it, even in your own terms?

You also haven't explained why the greed of coerced transactions is somehow morally better than the greed of consensual transactions.