Would you vote for the following …

I have been seeing a lot of electoral campaigning issues given that Australia has a federal election coming up, and to be honest with you, I’m utterly fed up with how disingenuous and gutless all our politicians — or at least the vast majority of them — seem to be … so I decided to write an article explaining a hypothetical policy platform, to see how many people would read, share, and like it on social media; given also that I know what my blog has received in readership in the past, so it should be reasonably easy to tell if this does stunningly or unusually well compared to other past posts.

If it doesn’t strike a chord with people, then I may revert to my other plan of retiring to the countryside, or trying to find a way off this planet.

Ok, so let’s just break it up into category headings based on domestic & foreign policy, economic sectors, industries, government departments etc.

Foreign policy:

International relations — war:

Australia should take a neutral stand on warfare, but when I say ‘neutral’, what I mean is this:

• IF a country is being invaded;
• REGARDLESS of whom is invading;
• THEN we only ever enter a conflict to defend those on their home soil;

— which is designed to ensure that our top priority is defending against warfare.

CAVEAT: there is such a thing as ‘the exception paradox’, and so the exception to this policy would be where a coup had been performed, and the people were now subjected to a fascist regime — for example: we would side with Russia in freeing Ukraine, and allowing it to choose whether it remains independent or rejoins the Russian Federation.

RATIONALE: while I have no particular love for states, nor any confidence in representative democracy ( given its many flaws ); it should nonetheless be held as an essential interim measure of protecting peace and sovereignty, to discredit all wars of aggression, and defend those on their home turf, or stay the fuck out of it. Such a policy minimises warfare and death, along with all its pollution and waste of resources.

International Relations — trade:

Again, I’m no fan of capitalism — which I’m sure you’re aware of if you’ve read my blog — BUT so long as it exists, a policy is required, and in terms of import, export, and the sharing of information, technology, and skills:

• it is vital under capitalist economics to get something in return for any trade;
• however in the interests of good relations and relief of suffering, it is also vital that we help others;
• therefore we must adjust any tariff and taxation policies, along with ‘aid’ to ensure that all nations we deal with are fairly treated;
• but we must also be mindful of how foreign relations policies can impact our domestic markets;

— all of which therefore needs to be tied to domestic policies ( where relevant ), and so I will discuss certain foreign policies in the context of their domestic counterparts.

Link to domestic minimum wage & UBI policy:

As will be discussed later in domestic welfare & social security policy, we need to care for our own people, but our policies on wages impact our competitiveness in overseas markets. Australia has an advantage in the respect that our domestic market is wealthy, and can buy a lot of products, and while small on the global scale, it nonetheless affords us some small leverage.

So in order to simultaneously:

• protect our domestic workers’ rights;
• encourage better wages and conditions overseas also, such that our domestic workers are not having to compete with slave labour;
• be fair with respect to import tariffs;

— we should algorithmically tie the rate of import tariffs, to the degree to which a foreign exporter hoping to sell goods to the Australian market, is adhering to principles of fair wages and conditions in their own country.

So if a country has extremely bad wages and conditions — relative to the size and stability of their economy etc. — then their exports should be taxed accordingly with these import tariffs, designed to level the playing field for domestic workers whom produce the same or similar products. We should further encourage other countries to do the same thing, and ideally adhering to the same algorithm for the determination of minimum wages etc., as per the section dealing with that policy later in this article.

ADVANTAGES: in this way, no country has to compete with slave labour per se, so it ceases being a race to the bottom, and yet a slight advantage may still exist in certain industries for some countries, as a consequence of their cost of living being lower from a weaker economy, and thus they have the chance to be competitive without necessarily being slaves ( wage slaves or actual slaves ).

Link to human rights policy & trade of technology:

If we apply the same principle to the idea of hampering the empowerment of fascist regimes and dictatorships, then a similar situation arises where we are potentially going to share technology with another nation via trade; but this time we are concerned not with tariffs, but with limiting the technological level of traded goods and services to countries proportional to their human rights record — ie: we would not offer high technology trades to a country like Israel or Saudi Arabia, nor would we enter into high value trades with them, as they’re only going to use it for the persecution and killing of innocents.

Similar responses should occur for nations with a poor environmental record, the idea always being to limit the advancements of fascism, imperialism, and other insanity / stupidity — as this is a far more effective and less destructive tool than warfare.

International Relations — law & dispute resolution:

The idea behind the UN and the ICC — if we take them on face value — are good ideas, except that I’m no more a fan of law ( as an anarchist ) than I am of capitalism or democracy, BUT ( as before ) so long as they exist, and have not yet been replaced by better systems, they need to be seriously improved if they are to do their best to slow down the rate and magnitude of global destruction and suffering.

There should be no separate trade or commerce courts, just add another C ( for Civil ) to the ICC ( now ICCC ) and get them to deal with it, because courts based on economic principles are bound to be corrupt — ie: most money wins, which is stupid — and there’s no advantage in a separate body anyway.

I think it’s really up to the parties to decide which nations law a trade is governed by, but an external arbiter could certainly set some minimum standards, one of which would be the following:

• IF the trade took place entirely over the internet;
• THEN the trade occurred in the country from which the buyer made the purchase;

— BECAUSE the website was broadcast INTO that country to make the trade, AND the product was broadcast INTO the country in which it was received, REGARDLESS of where parts of the process of producing the product took place.

JUSTIFICATION:

• IF this were not true;
• THEN all other products you buy would be deemed to have been purchased at the point of manufacturing origin, no matter where you bought them;

— which would be entirely ridiculous, incongruent, and it would undermine the sovereignty of nations and their capacity to set laws & collect taxes, regarding trades in their countries for ANYTHING digitally transmitted.

Currently the situation allows tech companies to easily pay no tax, WHICH MEANS they are not contributing to the economies from which they benefit.

So far as international criminal law is concerned, it shouldn’t get involved in the domestic criminal law of nations EXCEPT as an arbiter of transnational disputes, AND in cases involving the defence of human rights, the prosecution of crimes against humanity, and ecological vandalism on a scale considered globally significant.

International Relations — foreign diplomats:

Naturally we need diplomats to aid in foreign relations, but I think the quality of the people we are often sending is garbage, and I want to see us stop imposing snotty nosed spoilt rotten privileged white guys on foreign countries … as much as I’d love to get rid of these bastards, we cannot trust them with any authority or power in the grounds of a less ethical nation, and we shouldn’t subject more ethical nations from having to put up with them. So rule #1 is “no dickheads”.

So instead of dickheads, who should we send? The answer is as simple as it is bleeding obvious:

• all diplomats should be some kind of creative or technical specialist — ie: academics;
• all diplomats should have their talents matched to the country;

— BECAUSE it is their job to HELP the nation they have been sent to, not just to wank around on a permanent holiday.

ADDITIONAL: we should also limit the ‘diplomatic immunity’ of all dignitaries ( both internally & externally ), to ONLY the differences between domestic and foreign law, instead of expecting them ( or being expected to ) tolerate the notion that a murder or some other crime is ‘no big deal’ just because it was committed by a diplomat — and while yes it’s true this makes the job potentially more dangerous, if for example a country wanted to frame a diplomat for a crime … BUT if we really think they’re likely to do such a thing, then we shouldn’t be sending anyone unless that person understands and wants to take the risk in order to improve relations.

Asylum Seekers & Refugees:

Australia should do its fair share, with no on or off shore detention, instead we should look to creating vastly more sophisticated underground cities in the desert, so that we can take better advantage of our land resources, without destroying any remaining forest in the coastal areas — thus we can easily provide homes for refugees, and in the process provide jobs for people in building those underground cities.

Such underground cities would bring water to the desert, thus bringing more than human life, and we will talk about this again on the domestic topic of infrastructure.

Domestic Policy:

Industrial Relations — minimum wage:

This policy is also linked to Social Security — welfare, and the foreign trade policy you’ve already seen.

If human rights are truly rights and not privileges, then it should be illegal to pay anyone below a wage whereby they have the economic capacity to fulfil such human rights, but it should also mean it is illegal for any country to have any policy that results in anyone ever having their human rights denied at any stage, or for any length of time — which actually isn’t difficult to achieve at all.

The truth of the matter is that we have the technology, and enough land surface area on this planet, without even touching the oceans, and with far more untouched wilderness than presently allocated globally, for every single man woman and child of a 10 billion population to have their own land — and even if I didn’t argue a policy that everyone should be just given land and the government pay for the requirements of greening it and building suitable habitation ( for those whom cannot afford to do so ), which mind you, I don’t think would be possible overnight, but is nonetheless the kind of longer term goal we should aim at ( though in a more sophisticated manner than such a simplistic example ) — so there’s no excuse for poverty, and 100% of all poverty is without question entirely manufactured.

Therefore as a short to medium term policy I would argue this:

• create an algorithm which data mines the internet, for the per person/location/time specific cost of fulfilment of all articles of the charter of human rights;
• this algorithm should be constitutionally protected, in order to stop wages being used as a political football;
• a business would then be required to use this algorithm to find the minimum legal wage;

— BUT as this is also the algorithm used to determine a UBI, and given the nature of how I define that policy, a company would need to allow for the fact that as a person starts earning above the UBI ( which they already receive ), that UBI payment is algorithmically tapered down; so you need to factor that in to your wage offering in order to entice people to give up their time to work for you.

Congratulations, we just eliminated poverty.

Now you may ask: “but why would people work if they don’t have to?” — which is a stupid question, but I’ll answer it anyway, as if it weren’t:

people get bored;

some people are unemployed now anyway;

some people are underemployed now anyway;

it would make job sharing easier;

some people aspire to more than the minimum;

— and really, why do you care anyway? If someone wants to be lazy and they’re happy living on the minimum, let them, it’s not an issue.

Industrial Relations — maximum wage:

I think it makes sense to set an algorithmically based maximum too, because this holds corruption and individual power in check.

I would suggest that the maximum is not an absolute ceiling, but a proportion relative to the minimum, median, and mean of all other employees — ie: if the guy at the top wants a salary rise, he can only get one as a proportion of what everyone else is paid, but also relative to the company’s total production — so he has to achieve 3 things to get a pay rise:

1. genuinely innovate;
2. improve revenue;
3. get a pay rise for everyone else;

• AND IF HE/SHE FAILS
• THEN WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THEM A PAY RISE?

Social Security — welfare:

So as promised, we do the UBI also, which is calculated by the same algorithm, but designed to taper down once you start earning ( non- linear tapering ), and so the exact same algorithm will produce a different result for different people — ie: the food expenses of an infant are less than that of a 6 foot tall sports player, and the accommodation costs of a person in a rural town might be lower than someone in a metropolitan city, where it further differs between suburbs, and meanwhile someone else has unique medical needs — so everyone gets what they need, no one misses out, no one is homeless, no one is in poverty.

The exact same algorithm prevents the need for multiple different pension types.

Also note: no mutual obligations of any kind, automate the whole system, and thus Centrelink staff can be entirely focused on helping people with special needs, and not wasting time on bullshit.

Infrastructure — underground cities:

I would set about the creation of a decades long plan to develop vast and extremely comfortable underground cities, so that we can do more to get rid of homelessness and poverty, not just domestically, but globally.

ADVANTAGES:

• less trees / wilderness removed for housing etc.;
• more land available for wilderness & farms;
• more land available for recreation;
• more water brought to and stored in the desert;
• reduction of bushfires by human support of nature;
• better insulation reduces need for heating & cooling;
• can link above & below ground structures including tree houses;
• human waste helps fertilise desert soils to bring life;
• less above ground roads causing roadkill of native species;
• … and the list goes on …

If we combine above & below ground real estate, including tree houses, Earth-ships, and other such innovative design ideas, we can have an extremely beautiful country with luxury for all, and at less ecological cost than the present stupidity from which only a handful benefit.

Infrastructure — internet:

You’re never going to get a wireless internet that is as fast as some kind of physical connection, for the simple reason that wireless is more vulnerable to interference & signal degradation, but there’s also the very serious issue of EMF radiation, which is related to policy on health.

So I would propose that — along with our underground cities — we develop a far better NBN plan, in which a direct hard-line is preferred, and where we limit wireless signals to avoid the consequence of excessive EMF radiation exposure, on top of all the other forms of pollution we expose ourselves to — besides which, it is good if you can get out of the city away from the mobile signals, and spend time relaxing in nature without it, and we should never forget that.

So whatever the best is, in terms of hardline connections, that’s what we should be doing.

More importantly also, the rate at which a country can spread and explore information, is directly related to the rate at which it can solve problems, and I don’t see the point in unnecessary middle men, so I think the profiteering of ISPs should be severely curtailed, and if someone understands how to do their own IT administration, there should be nothing stopping them getting a wholesale connection from a residential address, so long as they’re not expecting beginner tech support ( as that’s why you pay for an ISP in the first place ).

So ISPs may still have a place, but they have to earn it, and they can’t just charge ludicrous prices and rip off the consumer ( the way they currently do ).

Infrastructure — roads & transport:

Along with the underground cities, I have a vision for underground transport, which is based on the E3 maglev train concept ( the guys who started it before Musk came along with the Hyperloop ).

I’m not a fan of any of these things I’ve seen so far in terms of their implementation design, and I have what I think is a vastly better concept, which takes into account other factors such as continental plate tectonics & fault lines — along with some additional technology to make it happen — but this is not the time or place for divulging that intellectual property, and it would take more than a blog post to do it anyway.

The end result would be that above ground roads would essentially be linked to regular below ground tunnels AND to a specifically designed network of maglev tunnels.

BUDGET: as per all other areas of domestic spending, the cost of maintenance to ensure safe operation should be algorithmically protected in the constitution, to prevent it being used as a political football ( which I’ll cover next ).

Finance — federal budget:

As stated, certain spending needs protection, but it can only be protected if it is determined by a dynamic algorithm which allows a calculation to determine the actual spending — ie: the algorithm is protected, but produces a different result every time it is used.

What this means is that whether you’re talking health, education, or anything else, each has an algorithm to determine the minimum spending, so no political party can campaign on doing anything other than INCREASING spending, which means they have to actually have an idea for innovation in order to justify the argument for that increase.

CAVEAT: the exception occurs where they actually have a case for changing the underlying algorithm for the minimum, but which needs to pass certain tests before it is even allowed to be voted on, which are all academically determined ( and included in the protection ), and then it needs to win a referendum.

In this way, governments aren’t constantly changing shit to screw with each other at the next election, and they’re not changing things for any reason other than some kind of genuine innovation which they can actually argue a case for

Finance — reserve bank:

We should leave the unfair existing international banking cartels which make us subject to international pressures, and own our own federal reserve bank on our own terms, with no foreign interference.

As you probably know, I’m no fan of capitalism, so this is only an interim measure to stabilise it before it is dismantled & replaced with something that isn’t fucking stupid.

Finance — commercial & other banking:

For all other domestic banking, there should be a people’s bank ( as per Greens policy, which I agree with so long as capitalism actually exists ), and banks should have greater restrictions, especially on ethics, and have to share profits with those whom own the deposits.

Health:

The health sector is something close to my heart and mind as a consequence of my parents both being doctors, and I’d like to see the end of corruption of medical science and the healthcare industry, which presently focuses too much on the profitability of perpetual treatment, instead of prevention and permanent cure.

As such I would get personally involved in this area, meet with everyone from nurses to doctors, ambulance drivers, physiotherapists, dentists, nutritionists and so on, before coming up with a plan that works for all concerned, and aims ONLY at the best possible health & well-being outcomes.

I am inclined to think this would include innovations such as:

• music & sound therapy used in hospitals for recovery ( lowering stress );
• far healthier hospital food, a greater budget to catering;
• connection to farms & the production of nutritionally dense natural foods;
• food standards applied which seriously limit junk foods;
• more & better hospitals, especially for some country town areas with limited service;
• subsidisation of things which currently result in injury or illness, in order to achieve prevention, such as getting unsafe cars and drivers off the road, by subsidising vehicle upgrades, repairs, etc., while making drivers licenses harder to get by higher standards in testing ( it’s too easy at present, and too many Australian drivers are worse than fucking useless behind the wheel, while a car is quite literally a kinetic energy weapon );

— you get the idea ( I hope ).

Education:

Like health this should be constitutionally protected spending based on a population algorithm providing educational opportunities for life.

Private schools should ONLY receive any money at all for 1 thing: the delivery of curriculum, AND NOTHING ELSE. Your school is private, and should not take any funds at all from any public schools.

All public schools get 100% of their funding before any private school gets anything.

No religious indoctrination of any child under the age of 16, they can learn about religion in a historical context only, but if you want to teach them to BE religious, you can do that at home, or after they come of age ( and have some hope of rejecting it for the utter bollocks that it is ), or they can decide for themselves as an adult to go study it academically in the tertiary education sector.

I have massive plans to redesign how education itself operates as a process from the primary through to tertiary levels, but again this would take a whole series of posts, and it’s not the time or place for divulging that IP.

Agriculture:

This is an area of contention, so I’ll get straight to the contentious bit.

A sufficiently complex organism is sentient, and sentience means they’re capable of psychological suffering, but also the breeding of animals for nothing but slaughter, aside from being cruel, is ecologically unsustainable, and causes a great deal of habitat loss, which equates to loss of species diversity.

HOWEVER as I understand it would be impossible to stop everyone eating meat, I suggest the following short-medium term compromise:

• any highly sentient species that is significantly capable of psychological suffering, may not be slaughtered, YOU MUST WAIT FOR IT TO DIE OF NATURAL CAUSES;
• because ultimately when it’s dead, I don’t care whether it’s you or maggots or wolves that breaks down the corpse, someone has to do it;
• so a free range chicken farm can freeze the corpses when they die after a happy long life, being able to roam outdoors in real fields with shelter and social activity — ie: cage & barn would be banned, except where the barn is ONLY used as night time and weather shelter;
• a dairy cow could be eaten when it dies of old age — HOWEVER in the case of dairy, since there’s no slaughter of the calf either, and no cruelty ( so you can’t enforce pregnancy ), dairy farms would look to other methods of stimulating lactation, such as psychological ( sympathetic nursing, where other cows lactate even though they’re not the one with the calf ), physiological ( massage etc. that can stimulate lactation ), biochemical ( herbs and natural estrogens etc. in plant food which can stimulate lactation );

— so via these and other means, meat may be in shorter supply, and more expensive, but it won’t involve cruelty or as much ecological damage.

Insects and simple molluscs are unlikely to do much in the way of psychological suffering, which is not to say it won’t exist, but it cannot be to the same degree as our higher order sentient mammalian cousins like pigs, cows, goats, sheep, etc.

Hunting for food should be discouraged beyond simpler organisms, and where an animal is endangered or highly sentient, I think those beings in the wild should be protected by government paid snipers whom at least ‘clip’ any hunters or poachers who come after them. Anyone who has no sympathy and empathy for another sentient being, regardless of species, is a hypocrite by definition.

Agriculture — GMOs:

Australia would become a GMO free country, and we would work towards the establishment of high-yield natural and permaculture based farming, such as to reduce and eventually eliminate ALL use of pesticides herbicides and fungicides wherever possible, AND ALSO eliminating the need for fertilisers, by using those farming practices which support the soil biome & improve nutritional density over successive seasons of cropping.

Summary:

If it weren’t for getting writer’s cramp, I could keep writing all night and through tomorrow, but I’m hoping you’ll respond to this by realising “if that’s the way this guy can and does think, even in such a very general explanation across such broad and diverse fields, then I’ll bet he could write a book on it, and I’d just get more and more excited by the vision with every page” << IF this is you, THEN like and share this article.

Let’s show the politicians what REAL thinking is.