Not quite behind the throne

The IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) has had many words written about it, including that it may be the power behind the throne in the Abbott government. The problem is that ‘behind the throne’ usually means a shadowy or lesser known presence but the IPA is making itself anything but that, which may well lead to its undoing.

While the IPA certainly seems to be influencing the current government, one debating point is whether that is a genuine direct and active influence or merely a confluence of ideologies? Either way, it allows the government to support the IPA’s position on many issues and the IPA to claim it is influencing the public agenda.

Abbott in 2013, prior to the election, spoke at the IPA’s 70th anniversary (video here and transcript here) and in relation to its ‘wish list’ of 75 policies for an incoming LNP government openly endorsed ten of them and said: ‘that is a big “yes” to many of the 75 specific policies you urged upon me’.

Others have shown that Abbott, while definitely accepting some of the proposals, has been a little more pragmatic in adopting others or has been slow to take them too far. As with his decision not to proceed with the repeal of section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, Abbott may agree in principle with the IPA’s position but he is still a politician and will sometimes bow to political pressure, including public reaction, or to an inevitable political reality, such as not having control of the senate.

It is no coincidence that the IPA and Liberal Party policy are similar because Liberal members of parliament are involved in its activities and its current chairman is Rod Kemp, a former Liberal minister in the Howard government (who had already been a director of the IPA before becoming a Liberal member of parliament). Liberal power broker Michael Kroger is also on the board and one other member is also a former Liberal candidate — the other members of the board are business people. It claims to be a research organisation but there are no academics on its board, although it does have an academic Research Committee. Its approach to research, however, is anything but ‘academic’. Its Executive Director, John Roskam, says:

I’m sceptical about peer review in as much as you’re reviewed by your mates. Good analysis will stand up to scrutiny whether it’s peer reviewed or not.

The rejection of ‘peer review’ is interesting because, although designed to bring rigour to research, peer review has elements of a free market approach. It is competitive in the sense that other academics exercise their self-interest in finding flaws, if they can, in another’s work, thereby promoting their own work and their ability to ‘sell’ their own skills and knowledge. (It is sometimes when these elements dominate that the science can suffer.) If that does not follow market principles, then I’m not sure what does, but the IPA rejects it. We can only question why.

The IPA also refuses to divulge the funding for its research whereas mainstream research may be considered ‘suspect’ if funded by organisations that have a vested interest in the outcome of the research. Roskam again:

… he denies the IPA tailors its findings to the demands of the paying client. On the contrary, he says, clients come to the IPA because their concerns are consistent with IPA principles.

The IPA was founded in 1943, by big business, in response to what was seen as the threat of government interventionist social policies (also perceived as ‘socialist’ policies, remembering that Labor was in government at the time). Sir George Coles, founder of the Coles group, was its first chairman and it has been pointed out that all of its members in the early years lived in Toorak, an elite address in Melbourne.

It is also no coincidence that the Liberal Party was founded the following year: the IPA was involved and is reputed to have influenced (even provided) Menzies’ original policies. Early on it was a more conservative organisation but since the 1980s has become neo-liberal.

Although claiming to be a research organisation, its main aim appears more about getting its views before the public: in 2012‒13 financial year it claimed 878 mentions in print and online; 164 articles by its ‘researchers’ in the national media; 540 radio appearances and mentions; and 210 television appearances and mentions. I am not sure exactly what it means by ‘mentions’ — does it include critical mentions? — but it certainly appears a way of inflating the figures. Thus it claims media success in pushing its agenda. It may not be a bad thing that the IPA is now so openly pursuing its approach because, at least, it opens its arguments to wider scrutiny, rather than simply being a shadowy and secretive presence behind the throne.

Like the old union ambit claims (I’m sure it will enjoy that comparison), the IPA may not get all it wants but creates the debate and climate for the type of reform it wants. As its director for development and communications explained:

If we’re not out there arguing for the Australian Human Rights Commission to be abolished … no one is going to advance the idea of radically reforming it.

Even its approach that the ABC should be abolished as a government funded media service contributes to the ABC inviting its spokespeople to appear in the name of ‘balance’. (Although, interestingly, the IPA also wants the repeal of laws that mandate ‘balance’ in the media.) So, by pursuing a more radical agenda, it actually achieves lesser changes towards its ultimate aim.

The IPA agenda is not simply a set of policy prescriptions but a plan to reshape Australia in the neo-liberal image. Even the title of the article where its 75 policy ideas were presented clearly sets out that intent: ‘Be like Gough: 75 radical ideas to transform Australia’ [emphasis added]. The article correctly suggests that political culture moves left or right when left or right governments are elected, but claims that left governments are more successful in moving to the left than right governments are in moving the political culture and society back to the right. The article suggests that Abbott, to be successful with a free market reform agenda, must act like Whitlam and do it quickly: ‘If he hasn’t changed Australia in his first year as prime minister, he probably never will’. (As Abbott has now been in government for over a year, perhaps we can take limited comfort from that assessment.)

The IPA claims all this in the name of ‘freedom’ and perhaps garners some wider support for its positions because of that. (It had 3,383 members at 30 June 2013 and plans to have five thousand by the end of 2015.) We all support ‘freedom’ but, as with any offer too good to be true, one needs to read the fine print and find out what is actually meant.

I think more pertinent than Abbott’s speech at the IPA anniversary was a speech by Rupert Murdoch at that same event. Here are a few interesting excerpts revealing the big business and IPA defence of the free market and how they would like to shape the debate:

… we must argue the morality of free markets and the immorality of markets that are not free. The cold, commercial word ‘market’ disguises its human character — a market is a collection of our aspirations, exertions, choices and desires.

We have not persuaded people that the market does better because it is more moral — or that socialism fails because it is largely immoral in its denial of fundamental freedoms. To the contrary, too many people think that the market succeeds because it is based on a vice — greed. And that socialism is better because it is based on a virtue — sharing.

The market succeeds because it gives people incentives to put their own wants and needs aside to address the wants and needs of others. To succeed, you have to produce something that other people are willing to pay for.

[The market is] about fairness and opportunity. He [Arthur Brooks, leader of an American free market think tank] defines fairness as the universal opportunity to enjoy earned success. That means enjoying the fruits of our success.

What’s fair or compassionate, for example, about using taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street bankers?

What’s fair about taking money from people who have earned it and giving it to people who didn’t?

People begin to resent the rich only when they conclude that the system is rigged. To put it another way, if we wish to persuade people that income inequality is not the right way to measure the fairness of our society, we have to work to make sure that social mobility is real — especially for people at the bottommost levels of society. By that measure, we have much left to do.

Unsurprisingly, Murdoch’s approach to ‘fairness’ was picked up by the treasurer, Joe Hockey, in a speech he made to the Sydney Institute in June of this year:

In other words the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian. Is this fair?

Whilst income tax is by far our largest form of revenue, just ten percent of the population pays nearly two thirds of all income tax. In fact, just two percent of taxpayers pay more than a quarter of all income tax. Maybe these taxpayers would argue that the tax system is already unfair.

The majority of Australians do not understand (rightfully, in my opinion) why some level of redistribution of income is ‘unfair’: the arguments that do exist are more about the extent of redistribution. Also, Murdoch’s claim that ‘income inequality’ is not the right way to measure fairness does not stand up to scrutiny. Murdoch suggests that social mobility is the answer but Piketty showed that the increasing wealth of those at the top is creating a clear lack of mobility, not just for those at the bottom (whom Murdoch mentioned), but those in the middle and upper middle income levels, who now have only miniscule opportunity to rise to the levels of wealth of those at the top (like Murdoch). Murdoch also ignores (as Piketty does not) that his children will inherit all that wealth and will not have ‘earned’ it — ‘earning’ success and wealth is meant to be central to the free market approach. If they believe that earned wealth is a key to the ‘fairness’ of the free market, why don’t they support inheritance taxes?

When Murdoch uses the words ‘greed’ in relation to the markets and ‘sharing’ in relation to socialism, although critical of that view, he actually raises a basic difference. The market is based on the philosophy of the self-interested individual and what is ‘greed’ but an expression of self-interest? Sharing is based on social responsibility and the common good. If, as Murdoch says, people do have this view, it is not some vague unwarranted feeling but a genuine value judgement based on the underlying principles. (Also noting that when Murdoch and the IPA use the word ‘socialism’, they do not mean Soviet-style socialism but almost any progressive view that suggests governments have a role to play in ensuring fairness.)

While Murdoch claims that the market represents human aspirations, my piece on the free market showed the extent to which the economic theory of the market is not based on reality at all: it is a framework supporting the property-owning classes, particularly the property-owning elites. If I lose my property I have no place in the market, no opportunity to improve my situation. I think the ultimate loss of property is someone with a severe disability who has lost their capacity to sell even their labour. What would happen to such people in a pure free market? They would be like the beggars of the past, living on the streets and probably starving.

That takes us to the different views of freedom of the left and the right as discussed in ‘Whose freedom?’. Because the right and the free-market advocates do not accept lack of means or lack of capacity as a limitation on freedom, they do not see why government needs to intervene. It is only the left or progressive view of freedom, that it should include improving the capacity of individuals to exercise their freedom, that deals with situations like the severely disabled person’s freedom in a market society.

The example of the disabled person also shows that there is still a distinction between the ‘market’ and ‘society’, a distinction that is blurred or ignored in the IPA and Murdoch view of the world. Australian society generally takes the view that the disabled person, or the unemployed person forced out of the market (often through no fault of their own), should be given some support. That is done in the social realm, not by the market (although in many ways it supports the market), but because that social approach draws funding (through taxes) from market activities, groups like the IPA, and its business supporters, believe such funding should be severely limited — or non-existent in their perfect world! You can see where the Abbott government draws its inspiration from in its approach to welfare but, as it discovered post-budget, it is not a view widely held by Australians.

Murdoch also mentioned that there was a difference between being ‘pro-market’ and ‘pro-business’, a difference the IPA does not yet seem to have grasped. It has in its 75 ideas the development of northern Australia which, it states, the government should support by creating a special economic zone that provides government incentives and concessions. If the IPA actually believes in the free market then the north would be developed without government assistance because it would be in the self-interest of the free market players to do so. If it requires government assistance, then that is actually, in Murdoch’s words, a ‘pro-business’ stand requiring government interference in the market. Some have unkindly suggested that this approach is simply supporting Gina Rinehart’s vision of the north that includes lower taxes for her mining operations. As a fictional political character used to say many years ago: ‘You may well think that but I could not possibly comment’.

There are reports, however, that some major corporations did withdraw funding support for the IPA over its earlier stance on Aboriginal affairs and more recently over its support of climate change deniers. If those reports are true (and apparently they cannot each be confirmed), it would suggest that some big businesses have more sense, and more understanding of issues beyond the market, but which influence the market, than the current IPA.

The IPA philosophy runs counter to the Australian concept of ‘a fair go’, as Hockey discovered to his discomfort when he echoed Murdoch’s words. As suggested by my other pieces, the IPA misrepresents ‘freedom’ by supporting a very limited concept of the word. It also misrepresents its supposed free market philosophy by supporting specific business proposals that require government intervention (in contravention of the free market philosophy). It thinks that ‘the market’ is society. Its research is questionable, as is its political judgement, as evidenced by its approach to climate change.

The IPA may be behind Abbott’s throne but it is making its presence known, even boasting of its role, which may not be in its or Abbott’s best interests. It has arguments built on sand that are not in accord with the values of the majority of Australians. The more it comes out from behind the throne, as it is doing, the more Australians will understand what it, and the Abbott government, truly stand for.

What do you think?

Can the World be a Better Place?

‘Pay it forward’ is a concept where the beneficiary of a good deed repays the ‘debt’ by assisting others, who need some help and support into the future, rather than the initial benefactor. Wikipedia credits the terminology to a book written in 1916 by Lily Hardy Hammond entitled In the Garden of Delight.

On 10 October the Nobel Prize Committee announced the winners of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize. They were Malala Yousafzai, a 17 year old Pakistani lady who promotes the rights of children to have an education and, as a result of her activism, was shot in the head two years ago by the Taliban while attending school in Pakistan’s Swat Valley, and Kailash Satyarthi, a 60 year old Indian gentleman who has campaigned for years against child slavery and child trafficking.

The Guardian reported that the two prize winners contacted each other soon after the announcement was made and decided to invite their respective prime ministers to the joint award ceremony in Oslo on 10 December 2014. There is a long history of dispute and mistrust between the two countries and it will be interesting to see if both prime ministers attend.

The Nobel Prize Committee stated in its press release:

The Nobel Committee regards it as an important point for a Hindu and a Muslim, an Indian and a Pakistani, to join in a common struggle for education and against extremism. Many other individuals and institutions in the international community have also contributed. It has been calculated that there are 168 million child labourers around the world today. In 2000 the figure was 78 million higher. The world has come closer to the goal of eliminating child labour.

Effectively what has happened here is that two people from different nations and religions have been awarded what is considered the ultimate prize for work to better the human race.

While some may argue that the Nobel Prize committees don’t always get it right, more often than not, they do. Usually the people or organisations that have been awarded a Nobel Prize have excelled in advancing the human condition in some way. In 2014, the committee acknowledged that the joint winners of the Nobel Peace Prize showed that different religions and different nationalities (India and Pakistan) can work together to achieve a common aim, despite the long history of distrust between those two countries at a national level. It is a powerful message.

Alfred Nobel made his fortune by invention. He successfully applied for 355 patents — including dynamite (which Alfred invented after his brother Emil was killed in an explosion). In 1888, another of his brothers, Ludvig, died and a French newspaper accidently published Alfred’s obituary, criticising the invention of dynamite. Nobel then rewrote his Will to:

… set aside a bulk of his estate to establish the Nobel Prizes to honour men and women for outstanding achievements in physics, chemistry, medicine and literature, and for working toward peace.

He died in 1895, and after his estate was settled, 31,255,000 kroner (around US$250 million in 2008 terms) was left for the establishment of prizes. Yousafzai and Satyarthi will share a cash award of around $1million from Nobel’s estate as well as the well deserved honour and glory.

Nobel hasn’t been the only person to ‘pay it forward’. Microsoft hasn’t had a reputation of being the most ethical of companies on the planet with a number of ‘anti-competitive behaviour’ judgments against it in various jurisdictions. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is headed by Bill Gates, one of the founders of Microsoft. According to its website, the Foundation has US$40billion in assets, has made US$30.1 billion in grants since inception, of which US$3.4 billion was granted in 2012 and US$3.6 billion was granted in 2013.

The Foundation’s website claims:

Our foundation is teaming up with partners around the world to take on some tough challenges: extreme poverty and poor health in developing countries, and the failures of America’s education system. We focus on only a few issues because we think that’s the best way to have great impact, and we focus on these issues in particular because we think they are the biggest barriers that prevent people from making the most of their lives.

While the program is based in the USA, there have been a number of grants to universities, hospital research organisations and even website design companies in Australia to further the aims of the Foundation.

Unfortunately for every Alfred Nobel or Bill and Melinda Gates, there are others like the Koch brothers in the USA and Rupert Murdoch.

There are a number of groups both here and in the USA that claim to be ‘grass roots’ organisations that are concerned about the government’s influence in every day lives. In the USA:

There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.

In August 2010, The New Yorker magazine published a long article demonstrating a link between Koch Industries and ‘grass roots’ organisations such as ‘Americans for Prosperity’. Koch Industries is a company owned by David and Charles Koch that manufactures Lycra and other ‘household brand names’ and has significant interests in the oil and energy industry. The article claims:

During the 2000 election campaign, Koch Industries spent some nine hundred thousand dollars to support the candidacies of George W. Bush and other Republicans. During the Bush years, Koch Industries and other fossil-fuel companies enjoyed remarkable prosperity. The 2005 energy bill, which Hillary Clinton dubbed the Dick Cheney Lobbyist Energy Bill, offered enormous subsidies and tax breaks for energy companies. The Kochs have cast themselves as deficit hawks, but, according to a study by Media Matters, their companies have benefitted from nearly a hundred million dollars in government contracts since 2000.

Remember the ‘Global Financial Crisis’ of 2008? Australia’s reaction was a series of measures to stimulate the economy — namely the $900 cheques to families, the home insulation scheme and the ‘Building the Education Revolution’ where infrastructure was provided at thousands of schools across the country. On a macroeconomic level, the program was successful as Australia is one of the few countries in the world that can truthfully claim continual economic growth for a period that exceeds 20 years. The New Yorker reports, however, that in America:

Soon after Obama assumed office [in 2008], Americans for Prosperity launched “Porkulus” rallies against Obama’s stimulus-spending measures. Then the Mercatus Center released a report claiming that stimulus funds had been directed disproportionately toward Democratic districts; eventually, the author was forced to correct the report, but not before Rush Limbaugh, citing the paper, had labelled Obama’s program “a slush fund,” and Fox News and other conservative outlets had echoed the sentiment. (Phil Kerpen, the vice-president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, is a contributor to the Fox News Web site. Another officer at Americans for Prosperity, Walter Williams, often guest-hosts for Limbaugh.)

The New York Times reported Jane Mayer’s article in The New Yorker and correctly pointed out that David Koch had donated millions of dollars to the arts, cultural facilities and medical research in the USA. It also mentions:

As Mayer details, Koch-supported lobbyists, foundations and political operatives are at the center of climate-science denial — a cause that forestalls threats to Koch Industries’ vast fossil fuel business. While Koch foundations donate to cancer hospitals like Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York, Koch Industries has been lobbying to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from classifying another product important to its bottom line, formaldehyde, as a “known carcinogen” in humans (which it is).

There seems to be a divide here between progressive and conservative. While not praising the businesses of Alfred Nobel or Bill Gates, both of whom were rightly criticised at times for their business practices, there seems to have been some element of ‘paying it forward’ through the establishment of a financial environment to celebrate and improve the human condition. Others such as the Koch brothers seem to devise methods to promote their own business interests while attempting to remain unseen. Australian Senator Cori Bernardi is proud of his links to the US ‘Tea Party’ which receives considerable funding from the Kochs according to Jane Meyer. Bernardi was sacked from the ‘front bench’ during the time Malcolm Turnbull was opposition leader and resigned from a junior ministry in the Abbott government for the promotion of views that were too conservative even for the Liberal Party. Ironically, one of the people promoted as a result of Bernardi leaving the ministry was Arthur Sininidos who became assistant treasurer — then ‘stood aside’ when questions were asked about his business ethics.

The Abbott government’s denial of climate change, dismissal of the human rights of the unemployed and refugees, and the claim to be managing a ‘debt crisis’ are straight from the ‘playbook’ of the US conservatives as detailed by Jane Meyer in The New Yorker magazine.

Australia also has a history of people who have ‘made good’ ‘paying it forward’. Two examples are Graham Wood and Clive Berghofer who both actively support causes they believe in.

Wood co-founded Wotif, a last minute accommodation booking website in 2000. It now operates internationally and is based in Brisbane, Australia. In a 2006 interview, Wood described how he became wealthy — coming up with the original idea and realising he had nothing to lose. Wood has given significant funds to University of Queensland, the Australian Greens, assisted in the bankrolling of two news websites (The Global Mail and The Guardian Australia) and with Jan Cameron (the founder of the Kathmandu clothing firm) purchased a timber mill in Tasmania to effectively shut it down and preserve the old growth forest.

Clive Berghofer comes from Toowoomba in Queensland and made considerable money through property development. He was Mayor of Toowoomba for ten years and for some of that time also a National Party state member of parliament prior to the law being changed so that people could not serve on two levels of government concurrently. As evidence that conservative political leanings do not automatically disqualify people from attempting to improve the human condition, Berghofer’s website claims he has made numerous donations to medical research as well as sporting and educational bodies. Berghofer is on record as donating $60 million to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research as well as significant funds to Careflight.

As Nobel Prize winners, both Yousafzai and Satyarthi have earned the right and deserve to be known as ‘The Honourable’. Demonstrably, both of them will make good use of the fame and fortune that comes from being judged the world’s best peacemakers according to the Nobel Prize Committee for 2014. You could argue that the Gates family, Warren Buffett, Graham Wood and Clive Berghofer are also ‘paying it forward’ by supporting causes that will improve the human condition. It’s a shame that conservatives such as the Koch brothers and Bernardi seem only to seek improvement to their own condition.

What do you think?

Lords and ladies: a second morality tale

The Spruiker

Lords and Ladies, before we begin, may I humbly beg your indulgence to refresh your memory of the first morality tale, of the matches rustling in ragged coat pockets, of the fires and rising waters, of the tree monks and the paper castle.

Done? Excellent! Now we may proceed.

Lords and Ladies, since last I regaled you with tales of Tiny-er-er O’penmouth’s jesterly activities, he has been created a new man. Gone is the ‘er, er’ to be replaced by ‘pause, pause’, in his sentences and his thinking. Gone is the jester flapping inanely from great hall to field and forge. Now is come Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth, standing astride the history of kingdoms, soon to be master of all he surveys — even beyond what he can survey.

The Lords and Ladies of his kingdom succumbed to (or perhaps simply gave up on) his jests and gave him charge of their knights and yeomen: at least it saved them that irksome task — no longer checking that each breast plate was cleaned and shined or making peasants clear the roads of the droppings of the knights’ horses — and relieved them of the boredom of his jests. This new power has enthralled him, wrapped itself coquettishly in his mind, and he believes he is Napoleon — although, as Napoleon has not yet been born, perhaps he is the exemplar for the future. Now he thinks that distant Lords and Ladies should heed his every magnificent, even insignificant, word (even if it still takes him some time to get the word out), and should bow to his commands: although, like you, my Lords and Ladies, most continue to think of him as merely a court jester and not a good one at that. But beware!

The tale of Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth

When the Lords and Ladies of his kingdom granted Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth his newfound power, he immediately called out the knights and yeomen in defence of the borders of the kingdom. The Lords and Ladies looked on with benign amusement. There was no threat, they knew, but if it kept the jester amused and away from their own courts it achieved their intent and what harm could there be.

The knights and yeomen ringed the kingdom standing beside the orange boats — those which Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth had managed to retain, and he had also had the wheelwrights attach wheels to some of them. But who was he defending this kingdom from? No one was sure. But Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth decided that the borders must be protected from anyone trying to cross. ‘I’m not shutting the borders (pause) closing the borders’, he said, ‘just not (pause, pause) letting anyone in.’ Purely for the jest, he occasionally ordered the guards to allow some people to cross, then to round them up, pack them in the orange boats and push them back again or set them into the sea. He was having so much fun, he hoped the Lords and Ladies were taking notice of this splendid, ingenious jest.

They were and they didn’t like it. Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth was also stopping serfs whom the Lords and Ladies wanted to work in their castles and in their fields. Quite abashed he was summoned to the castle gates and four leviathan guards carried him, very un-genteelly, to the castle’s great hall where sat the Lords of the kingdom. (He had thought of arriving in one of his new orange boats with wheels but, luckily for him, they were all in use ferrying serfs and their families back across the border).

‘We need more serfs in our fields and at the forges, not fewer,’ the Lords told him.

Silence. And an open mouth. Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth could not think of a word to say, only numbers.

‘457’ he blurted.

The Lords silently glared at him.

‘400, 500, 700,’ Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth added into that silence.

All eyes were fixed on him and he could feel the chill of the dank castle dungeons creeping over him or perhaps the real hand of a guard grasping his shoulder in joyful anticipation of dragging another poor soul into the darkness below. ‘I can let in 700 (pause) or more. Or less,’ he added sensing no reaction. ‘We can call them (pause, pause) 457s.’ At least, he thought, that made sense of the numbers.

‘Call them what you will. Just let them in.’ The Lords’ final command.

Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth was dismissed. He had escaped the dungeons and felt well pleased with himself. Numbers had worked out fine instead of words. He would let some in — and send some back if the mood took him. After all, he now had that power. Power was a grand feeling, better even than being a jester. He could come to like this. The chagrin he felt, however, at the Lords’ final command prompted a vague impression that something was missing but in the pause between his thoughts he also missed the connection.

Not long afterwards, as fate would have it, a wagon load of serfs overturned in a distant kingdom — it was ten days ride away. Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth called the knights together.

‘I need you to ride to that far kingdom and bring the wagon home.’

‘Is it our wagon?” a knight dared question.

Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth hesitated. ‘It (pause, pause) it had our 457s in it’ Tiny told him. The knight gazed quizzically— what was a 457? — but asked nothing more. ‘And you’d better (pause) better bring the 457s here as well — at least, any who are (pause) still fit to work.’ The knights rode off not at all sure what they were meant to do but as valiant knights they did as they were bid.

A short time later, news came that the peasants in that distant kingdom were revolting. Tiny thought there was a joke about that but couldn’t quite bring it to mind.

Then, in a stroke of genius (at least Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth thought it was a stroke of genius), he decided that the wagon must have been overturned by the revolting peasants. (What was that joke?)

In his green great hall, with his jesters, clowns and goblins behind him and with a few summoned peasants in front, Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth unleashed page one of his exalted vision:

‘Those serfs in that far kingdom have forgotten their place. They think they can sup at the same table as the Lords and Ladies. They think they need no longer work for the Lords and Ladies. They are making the kingdom unsafe for the Lords and Ladies. They are interfering in other kingdoms and stirring serfs there to think as they do. They deserve the condemnation of all kingdoms. They deserve the condemnation of all other serfs for threatening your way of life.’

That wasn’t what the peasants thought at all. How could they work when fires ravaged the landscape, when waters rose and no longer receded? When the land turned to mud, they could barely grow enough food and the Lords and Ladies demanded what little there was. And in that kingdom, the peasants had finally taken the matches from their pockets and lighted the fire of revolution.

The knights returned from that far kingdom empty-handed: no wagon and no fit serfs to work for the Lords and Ladies but that no longer concerned Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth. He had discovered the rapture of his power, able to send the knights off to wherever he chose and, to his astonishment, many of the serfs even cheered them as they rode out and when they rode in again. This was all starting to add up in Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth’s mind, even if the additions were interrupted by pauses. He couldn’t quite see it yet but the numbers were fatefully drawing together. Perhaps it required just a shorter pause between his thoughts.

The peasants’ revolt spread. New kingdoms were being infected by it as the waters continued to rise, as the fires continued to burn. Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth sent twelve knights and their retinue to join knights from other kingdoms: the Lords and Ladies of many kingdoms were by then becoming alarmed and sending their own knights to quell those rebellions before more castles burned, before more fields were left untended, before revolt spread to their own kingdoms. ‘You are defending our own kingdom,’ Tiny told the knights before they rode off. ‘No we’re not,’ someone shouted from the attendant crowd, but Tiny didn’t see who and ignored it for then, although noting it for the future: he could not have people doubting his splendiferous schemes or there would indeed be local rebellion.

Matching a shorter pause in his thoughts, the numbers came together in a second wave of genius and Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth had his epiphany. Now he understood how he could control the serfs and peasants of his own kingdom, how to quiet the dissenting voices. The Lords and Ladies would be grateful beyond measure: but did that matter now? They had not given him control over the peasants but he knew then how he would have it.

He returned to his great hall and, with the jesters, clowns and goblins again gathered behind him and a select few peasants in front (again), announced his next transcendent vision.

‘The peasants are revolting. (He wished he could remember that joke.) You might think it is only in the far kingdoms (pause) where I have sent our knights. But they threaten us. They threaten you. They are not content (pause, pause) attacking only the Lords and Ladies. They will kill any peasant (pause) who does not agree with them and kill them most horribly. They wish to create (pause, pause) a world (pause) a world where they are in control and you will still be serfs (pause, pause) but serfs not as well cared for as the Lords and Ladies tend you.’

Despite a lone cry of ‘crap’, the majority was listening then. They were mostly attentive and motionless awaiting Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth’s next word. No laughter, no raucous bellowing back at him. They know I am no longer only a lowly jester, he thought. They are afraid and that is good. He continued (after a pause, of course):

‘Already there are those among us who support those revolting peasants. Those who will seek to kill you and burn your fields (pause).’

‘The fields are already burning’, a peasant called across the hall, but only the same single soul who had earlier yelled ‘crap’. Tiny felt confident, however, that now such voices would disappear beneath the maelstrom of fear he was fashioning, so he ploughed on, digging more deeply the furrows of foreboding.

‘They threaten your way of life. You will have to flee for your lives unless you allow the knights and yeomen to patrol within our own kingdom, to go into houses and drag out those who would harm you, to follow them to their secret meeting places, to watch their every movement — where they go, whom they visit.’

He grew assured that now the Lords and Ladies would let him close the borders. But that question, ‘did it matter?’, re-echoed in his thoughts.

Previously, as no more than a common jester, he had thought that sometimes ‘shit happens’ but then he confidently understood he could make it happen. Even if not a single peasant in his kingdom (it wasn’t actually ‘his’ — yet!) was threatening revolt, it was a mendacious and all-powerful justification to round up those terrible tree monks (or those who looked like tree monks) who insisted that something substantial was amiss when the rising waters did not recede, when the fires kept returning. Yes, he could well do without them making the peasants restless and giving them something else to fear.

Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth continued to disregard those rising waters and recurring fires. The knights and yeomen could not stop them, so what was the point of concerning himself.

Yes, now he had the plan. Eventually even the Lords and Ladies would not be immune. The knights and yeoman would enter the castle on pretext of searching out revolting peasants who had found their way in as blacksmiths, cordwainers, coopers and fletchers, and find the Lords and Ladies who protected them or who heeded the preaching of the tree monks (whether they did or not would no longer be of consequence). He could be rid of them too. He would no longer need his paper castle. He would have the real castle!

‘Soon I will be Emperor’, he dared tell himself. ‘No more Lords and Ladies — just me. My power is majestic and makes me a glorious and illustrious personage, worthier, nobler yet, than the Lords and Ladies. I will be Emperor!’

What do you think of Tiny Napoleon O’penmouth?

Darkening times

The Australian Parliament recently passed legislation giving ‘law enforcement’ agencies considerably greater powers that are claimed to be necessary to combat the ‘Islamic State’ terrorism threat. Prime Minister Abbott also addressed the United Nations General Assembly late in September on the threat to humanity posed by the rise of the group and pledged Australia’s assistance in a united effort to control the threat. Mark Kenny, reporting for Fairfax, reported Abbott’s speech, on how Australia would shoulder its proportion of the burden in these ‘darkening times’, as being ‘workman like’ and ‘pedestrian’. This could be considered to be high praise for the organisational and communication abilities of a prime minister who flew to London to talk to his UK counterpart on the phone, who mangled a set piece in a foreign language and invented a new name for a country while standing beside its prime minister.

John Birmingham, writing on The Brisbane Times website suggests the sudden and urgent need to pass legislation and deploy security forces is primarily ‘theatre’. Civil libertarian Bret Walker SC is reported in The Saturday Paper as suggesting:

Indeed, by accepting the suggestion that terrorists are something other than ordinary murderers, we have “bought their propaganda” and given them the “glamour of being extraordinary”

While not minimising the inhumanity that the ‘Islamic State’ is reported to be capable of, could this action be seen to be an attempt to wrap Australia in khaki to distract us from other ‘elephants in the room’ — such as climate change perhaps?

The US Government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a webpage that lists answers to a number of frequently asked questions in relation to climate change. It does acknowledge that temperatures on earth vary over time but points out the current rise is faster and more pronounced that what has occurred naturally in the past. It also suggests that the consensus of expert opinion is that human activities are actively contributing to the problem. The response to the question on potential effects of the global average temperature rising by 2° Fahrenheit gives some graphic examples, for the USA, on the extent of change to civilisation as we know it.

Changing the average global temperature by even a degree or two can lead to serious consequences around the globe. For about every 2°F of warming, we can expect to see:

  • 5 ‒15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown
  • 3 ‒10% increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest precipitation events, which can increase flooding risks
  • 5 ‒10% decreases in stream flow in some river basins, including the Arkansas and the Rio Grande
  • 200% ‒ 400% increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western United States
As these effects are predicated on an average rise in global temperature, it stands to reason that similar changes would be experienced worldwide.

The day before Abbott addressed the United Nations, he chose not to attend an international conference on climate change — also held in New York. Abbott did, however, find the time while in New York to dine with Rupert Murdoch.

The conference was ‘sponsored’ by the United Nations and the attendees included David Cameron (prime minister of the United Kingdom and the PM that Abbott flew to London to ring) and Barack Obama (president of the United States). To be fair, Foreign Minister Bishop did attend the conference and the leaders of China and India also chose to send an apology.

European Union commissioner for climate action, Connie Hegedaard, commented:

I do not know what the reasons would be behind it, but, of course, the world will interpret who is showing up and who will not be showing up.

So that's for your Prime Minister and your government to decide, what kind of profile they want in this.

One of the outcomes of the conference was there seems to be a consensus that the use of coal for various industrial processes has a limited future. The Australian Government and the International Energy Agency disagree, stating that growth will come from newly industrialised countries such as China and India. In fact:

the Pulitzer Prize-winning climate change news website Inside Climate News published a story about the "Canada-Australia axis of carbon". It suggested that not only were the two nations not willing to pull their weight, but that they were seeking to derail the binding agreement on emissions reductions at next year's talks in Paris that many view as the world's last best hope to prevent catastrophic climate change.

"Neither the prime ministers of Canada nor Australia will speak at the summit, and the subordinates they have sent will not be offering the kind of ‘bold’ new steps that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is seeking on the way to a treaty in Paris late next year," it reported.

China, the largest consumer of coal in the world has announced that it will use 50 million tonnes less coal annually in the near future. China also is increasing the use of wind power technology in the next few years, to twice the capacity of the entire European Union.

The name Rockefeller has been associated with wealth, power and influence for decades. The ‘founder’ of the dynasty made a lot of his money in pumping oil out of the ground, processing it and selling the products. The Rockefeller family still has significant financial clout, with billions invested in industry. On the eve of the UN’s climate change conference the head of the family trust announced that it would be selling its USD56 billion of fossil fuel assets and reinvesting it into ‘clean energy’. The Rockefeller Trust is a member of a group known as ‘Global Divest-Invest Coalition’. Other members include Stanford University who have announced its USD21 billion endowments will no longer be invested in coal assets.

The Australian Government commissioned a report this year into the renewable energy industry and its funding. In a classic example of not asking the question until you know the answer, the panel was led by Dick Warbuton who is reputably no friend of renewable energy. Abbott has also claimed in the past that renewables don’t work because there is no potential for 24 hours a day, seven days a week generation of electricity. A report in Crikey from early this year discusses Dick Warbuton’s contribution as well as Abbott’s claims. The Crikey article also discusses the switch within Germany and South Australia to using considerable quantities of renewable power, refuting the argument that renewable power cannot be used as ‘baseload’ (generating the consistent demand for power day or night) as well as the experience in Germany where coal fired power stations are being mothballed as uneconomic soon after commissioning.

Spain has a reputation for bad waiters, economic problems and bull fighting. It also has a number of power plants that use renewable energy. At least one of the plants near Seville can generate power from sunlight 24 hours a day as it stores some of the heat generated by the mirrors as molten salt — which is then returned to the system when the sun isn’t shining to generate steam and turn the power turbines. Another Spanish solar plant has been immortalised by James May (of Topgear fame) in this YouTube clip.

There are a number of large solar power generators located in the USA, some of which also store heat to allow generation when the sun isn’t shining. One of the largest, located at Ivanpah in California’s Mojave Desert covers 1600 hectares and will eliminate 13.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over the estimated 30 year lifespan of the facility.

If, despite the large area of desert and abundant sunlight across Australia, there really are problems with generating baseload solar power in Australia, as claimed by Abbott and others with what seem to be vested interests in the status quo, there is also promising technology generating power from the waves on the seashore. The waves never stop. The big issue would be the engineering to ensure that the infrastructure is not sucked out to sea or washed up on the beach. This engineering problem has been looked at by a number of different researchers. One firm that is trying to commercialise its solution is Australian: Carnegie Wave Energy, based in Fremantle. It has demonstration energy production plants in operation in Perth, Western Australia, and in Ireland. An added bonus is that they can operate a desalination plant, that doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, using parts of the same infrastructure. While the Federal Government has provided a grant for the proving of the concept, the funding was provided in May 2012 — and, in any event, the WA government provided a larger sum.

Worldometers is a free resource on the internet that has contributions from a number of experts that calculates various statistics including the volume of greenhouse gases emitted, the end of oil and the end of coal. As the numbers are constantly changing it is pointless listing their estimates here — however, the number is less than 40 years in the case of oil.

Abbott went to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly on a significant threat to our way of life. While the ‘Islamic State’ could conceivably be a threat to us, the end of fossil fuels and irreversible change to the environment is certainly a threat, caused by the continual pumping of carbon dioxide and other harmful chemicals into the air. Even if the Australian Government is correct that, as a nation, we are responsible for only 1.5% of the world’s total, Australia has the resources, technical capacity and ability to generate considerable quantities of power from either large solar plants or harnessing the energy of waves to again ‘lift above our weight’ and assist others. Currently we don’t — and our current leadership doesn’t seem to be inclined to acknowledge the problem.

Australia’s prime minister misrepresented an emissions trading scheme as a tax and didn’t have the courage to attend a climate change conference in New York the day prior to his address to the United Nations General Assembly (while finding the time to dine with Murdoch). His review of alternative energy solutions is led by a person who has a long history of denial of climate change. He has removed an emissions trading scheme that was showing positive benefits to both the environment and the economy, all the time claiming that issues such as renewable energy have too many insurmountable problems to be considered as permanent solutions to energy supply. Clearly he is wrong but the recent actions by Abbott and his ministers would suggest that only some of the real problems facing humanity are important. The worst possible result of addressing climate change is that fossil fuels last considerably longer — which isn’t a bad alternative anyway.

While no one here is attempting to justify the actions of a small group that seemingly wish to inflict their fundamentalist views on others, which is worse, the ones that address an environmental problem that will affect everyone by doing nothing or the ones that address centuries of political unrest using an incorrect interpretation of a religious text?

Twenty-four hour a day, seven day a week generation of power can be achieved by use of solar, wind or wave power as well as coal and gas. The entire east coast of Australia is on the same electricity grid. Clearly technical or logistical issues aren’t the issue — what is?

What do you think?

Whose responsibility?

Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.

That was said almost 2,500 years ago by Aristotle. Religion continued the emphasis on social responsibility over the following millennia. Christianity has the parable of the good Samaritan and the Golden Rule, from Jesus saying ‘So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets’ (that is the wording in the modern English Standard Bible). Islam also emphasises community and, in fact, the foundations of Islam were based on reforming society; it also emphasises public, or communal, worship; and it has a strong emphasis on the social responsibility to stop your ‘brothers’ from doing wrong.

In the Western tradition, that began changing in the 1700s with the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke placing more emphasis on the self-interested individual, although Locke, unlike Hobbes, still believed humans were social animals but drew a clear line between civil society and the state — society creates order and grants the state legitimacy, and the state provides impartial justice and the impartial protection of property. Locke is considered the father of ‘liberalism’.

While Hobbes argued that humans in a ‘state of nature’ were constantly at war and life was ‘nasty, brutish and short’, Locke saw that ‘state of nature’ as peaceful because individuals had a duty to respect the rights of others. This was a ‘natural’ moral duty.

More recent writers, like Hayek and particularly Ayn Rand, took individual self-interest further. Ayn Rand went so far as to suggest that the individual has no ‘natural’ duties to society, summarised as follows:

We only have one life and the good is to live it. Learn to pursue your own happiness by discovering the life-promoting values it requires. Think rationally and don’t bow to authority. Join with other people when you have real values in common and go your separate way when you don’t. Don’t try to be your brother’s keeper or to force him to be yours. Live independently.

To me, it seems that these more recent approaches have come to dominate our social and economic thinking, with greater emphasis on individual rights and less on the social ‘duty’ to respect the rights of others.

The modern neo-liberal economists certainly see little or no role for government. In their perfect world the individual is free to pursue their own ends in accord with the John Stuart Mill maxim that ‘The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way’. But they tend to ignore the proviso in Mill’s statement: ‘so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to attain it.’

In reality, Mill’s maxim balances individual and social responsibility by stating that an individual’s freedom cannot come at the expense of others’ freedom (Locke’s natural moral duty to respect the rights of others). When we start taking account of ‘others’ in exercising our freedom and making our personal decisions and choices, we are exercising social responsibility. But there are also social responsibilities that are, or should be, communal. In our modern societies those responsibilities are often taken by government in the interests of the community as a whole.

In rejecting a social element in economics, economists refer to the ‘tragedy of the commons’ to justify that individual ownership, that is private property, is superior to common, or social, ownership. Although the idea has a longer history, the phrase came from a paper by Garrett Hardin in 1968. It was suggested that, when people grazed their herds on a ‘common’, a self-interested individual could improve his situation by adding one animal to his herd. The individual would gain the benefit. But if each individual adds one animal, or two, the common is quickly degraded. While the individuals retain the benefit of having an extra animal, the ‘cost’ (the degradation) is shared, leaving them with a self-interested benefit — before the failure of the system. Following this argument, and its corollary that Adam Smith’s benevolent ‘invisible hand’ of individual self-interest does not work for the commons, economists suggest that private property and the individual’s responsibility for that property remedies the situation.

That approach is based, however, on a misunderstanding of how commons worked. They were not ‘open access’ as the theory implies. Throughout the world where people shared resources, there were usually social and cultural rules that controlled that sharing. In Iceland, for example, the common resource of the fisheries was traditionally controlled by kinship rules that allocated spaces on the beach that were necessary for launching fishing boats. In some communities in India, the allocation of the common resource of water for farming was determined by community meetings. People accepted these approaches as essential for the well-being of their communities, or, in other words, were accepting social responsibility.

Hardin put the ‘tragedy of the commons’ in the context of population pressure and I accept that population pressure is a factor but not necessarily in the way Hardin interprets it. It is sometimes population pressure that will force people to leave a community, and enter the market economy, because the social rules prevent them having full access to the ‘common’. It is often on their return (even merely for a visit), with new ideas of individual responsibility, self-interest, and private property, that the decline of social obligations for the maintenance of the common accelerate.

It was the breakdown of social responsibility, of local rules and obligations that changed the use of the commons, and that itself arose from the introduction and growth of the market with its emphasis on individual self-interest. That can be seen in recent history in developing countries. As some people abandon the local rules to participate in the market, the ‘cost’ (in economic terms) of maintaining social obligations rises and no longer provides the greatest benefit, hastening the break-down of social responsibility. Rules of reciprocity, which were common in many societies and reinforced social obligations, also came under pressure from the influence of the market and the concept of private property.

In our own society, the health system provides an example of the roles of individual and social responsibility. A healthy population is, among other things, in the economic interests of a community or society, providing a healthy labour force and reduced costs in caring for the sick — ‘cost’ in this context includes time spent caring for the ill, which may mean two people withdraw from the labour force, the carer and the cared for. While an individual’s choices can affect their health (smoking, over-eating, not exercising) and, therefore, there is a case for individual responsibility, there are many other environmental and genetic factors that contribute to disease over which the self-interested individual has no control. Social responsibility is taken on by government to the extent that it attempts to control those external factors by, for example, pollution controls, food and drug safety, disease surveillance, occupational health and safety and even urban planning that allows for healthy environments, including access to exercise amenities (parks, walking tracks and so on). The neo-liberals would not agree with some of these. They are more likely to stress that the value an individual puts on their health is reflected in the price they are willing to pay — hence the growth of private fee-paying gymnasiums, let alone private health care.

Stressing the rights of the individual over the health of the community can have serious implications. In the case of major illness, we generally accept that individuals, even neighbourhoods or whole communities, may need to be quarantined — as in the current Ebola outbreak in Africa, or an outbreak of bubonic plague in Sydney in 1900 when many blocks in and surrounding the current CBD were quarantined, then cleaned, and people moved into camps. This is a clear case of social responsibility over-riding individual rights but I’m not sure how the neo-liberals would deal with it philosophically. There is also a tension between individual and social responsibility even with minor illness. If I have a cold or influenza, should I exercise my right to earn a living and go to work, or should I stay at home and not spread the illness to others? If I spread my illness, am I impacting the right of others to earn their living? It can be argued that paid ‘sick days’ for employees is a socially responsible way of dealing with this.

You would think that providing health care would be a ‘public good’ to be provided by government as a social responsibility but that is not necessarily so when one reads the economic definition of a ‘public good’. The economists usually consider that the market has responsibility for the efficient allocation of resources and governments the responsibility for public goods — this is the economic separation of responsibilities.

Economists define ‘public goods’ negatively, in the sense that they are basically goods the market cannot provide at a profit — no concept at all that there may be a social responsibility or a social benefit in government providing certain goods and services irrespective of the market.

For an economist, a public good must be ‘non-excludable’ and ‘non-rivalrous’. The first means that it is not possible, or not cost efficient, to exclude people from benefitting by the provision of the good. Fireworks displays are a simple example: I could set up a fire works display and attempt to charge people to attend but people could easily watch from a short distance away (possibly even from their own nearby homes) unless I set up a large exclusion area, and that may not be feasible or may be too costly.

The second, ‘non rivalrous’, means that the consumption of the good by one person does not preclude it also being used by another. If I watch the fireworks that does not stop other people from watching, or my use of a park does not stop others from using it.

I have seen sewerage systems listed as ‘public goods’ but it would theoretically be possible to have a system where people could be excluded by disconnecting them, as can happen with electricity, but that could have wider health implications that could not be restricted to the individual concerned (the very reason sewers were first constructed). So there is a socially responsible health aspect, not ‘non-excludability’, in ensuring that all people remain connected to the sewerage system but that social responsibility is missing from the economists’ definition.

The market is not in interested in ‘public goods’, as defined above, because ‘non excludability’ creates the ‘free rider’ effect: that is someone can benefit without paying — the person watching the fireworks from their own window. The market places more emphasis on ‘non-excludable’ than ‘non rivalrous’, so suppliers in the market will happily create a price for non-rivalrous goods but won’t become involved in non-excludable goods: in this context, sporting events and cinemas can be considered non-rivalrous (many people can use the product at the same time) but they are excludable (one person or 80,000 can be allowed into a sporting event — it just depends on making a profit).

Despite that, the neo-liberal approach has seen more and more goods and services moved from the public to the private domain blurring the separation of economic responsibilities. That also moves decision-making rights regarding the good or service from one agent to another and involves, or should, a shift of the associated responsibility. So if former public services are now provided by the market, should the firms in the market also bear the social responsibility that goes with them? The neo-liberal economists claim that minimal social responsibilities should be borne by the market, using Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ to justify that self-interest has social benefits.

Corporate social responsibility is a significant issue. It rose to prominence in the 1960s and ‘70s but had almost disappeared by the late 1990s. It is making a comeback but the predominant economic philosophy remains that the duty of a CEO and a board is to maximise returns to the owners of a firm (the shareholders). It is argued that ‘social responsibility’ conflicts with the ‘duty’ to maximise returns, and also cannot readily be measured so there is little point in insisting that it should be part of a firm’s obligations. There is, however, an alternative argument that being a ‘good corporate citizen’ is in the long term interest of a company and the value it is able to return to its shareholders. Unless a company is intent on maximising earnings and profit in the short term and then folding (as some obviously do), a company able to sustain its earnings into the future does require some acceptance of social responsibility and good corporate citizenship. It is when they realise that their ‘image’ is important for sales, that these issues may rise to the fore.

For current ‘commons’ like the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, economists argue that a degree of ownership is required to stop degradation, such as trading systems for reducing CO2 emissions, or tradeable quotas for fishermen, not that the problem can or should be remedied by government regulation. But if government in a democracy is representing the ‘will of the people’, then it may have a social responsibility to maintain the ‘commons’ for the people irrespective of the market. The UN is close to that view in relation to CO2 and climate change — but not the current Australian government.

What have companies been doing for over two centuries but ‘free riding’ on the rest of us by pouring their waste into the commons of the atmosphere, oceans and rivers. It is because the market has robbed the people of their control of the commons that private agents can exploit it; and also because many firms, following the neo-liberal economic agenda, don’t accept they have a social responsibility, neither generally nor in relation to the commons.

The neo-liberals ignore that people do not always act in their own self-interest. Social relationships and cultural values (social inclusivity) can mould decisions — these also shape our social responsibility. We support our neighbours in times of trouble, during floods and fires; ordinary people will run into a burning building to save someone they don’t know; people stop at road accidents to help if they can; people will care for a lost child until a parent turns up; and so on and so on. Despite what the neo-liberals think, social responsibility still exists in the hearts of the people and we are still a social animal — as infants we learn to be human in a social context, through the ‘others’ that surround us.

We should be demanding greater social responsibility, not just the promotion of individual self-interest, from companies and from government. Will we ever get social responsibility from our current government? Of course not, as it is too easy to see on which side of the fence it falls in this debate.

What do you think?