This just really takes the cake

In order to explain my recent inactivity in amongst headlines regarding the latest world happenings, I offer up the excuse that there has been an extreme heatwave in the Southern States of Australia and so it has put a dampener on any urge to debate and argue seriously.  But I am happy to inform you that this has given me a chance to rant and rave.

Government can’t deal with problems and it matters not whether it’s a catastrophic natural disaster, similar to America’s New Orleans, or whether it’s a heatwave in Adelaide.  Adelaide’s inhabitants have spent the last two days in temperatures that have hovered around the 44 degree market, give or take.  Some places north of the city record temperatures of 48 degrees yesterday.

So it could just be the heat, but something about the following report really pisses me off.

THE State Government says a press release urging people to use alternatives to air conditioning during a 40C-plus heatwave was merely intended to save you money.

Acting Energy Minister Paul Holloway called a media conference this afternoon and told reporters the Government was “merely suggesting to consumers a range of complementary measures to help them save money”.

Citing our community’s environmental responsibilities, the Government today put our a press release saying there were many alternatives to using air conditioners, urging South Australians to instead insulate ceilings, use external blinds or a pergola to shade windows, and use fans.

Doctors said the suggestion that people should use alternatives to air conditioning during a 40C-plus heatwave was “highly dangerous” – and a strong majority of AdelaideNow readers voting in the poll on this page agreed.

Mr Holloway today said air conditioning was most effective if there was good insulation, the curtains were closed to keep direct sunlight out, air flow was directed properly and the system was well maintained.

“Certainly, it is not the Government’s intention that people should not use their air conditioners,” Mr Holloway said.

Thank you Energy Minister Paul Holloway.  I assure you, your edict has been noted, immediately forgotten and I offer up this posts as a metaphorical, one fingered salute.

What amazes me, is whether Mr Holloway imagines that South Australians are going to run out, in the middle of a heat wave and hire someone to properly seal and insulate their roof, upgrade their air conditioning to a more efficient model and so on.  Or perhaps he imagines that South Australian’s are too simple to think of closing the curtains or lowering the blinds to make the air conditioning more efficient.  Maybe he even imagines that these measures might alleviate the need for air conditioning all together!  In that case I would seriously suggest Mr Holloway kindly takes himself out of his air conditioned office, and I guarantee it’s air conditioned, and spend some time in a Northern Suburban housing trust home to see if a fan can provide an ‘effective’ alternative to air conditioning, simply so that he may understand how hot it is even with the curtains closed.

I am from the poor northern areas of Adelaide, the domain of housing trust homes old and new, with some areas populated by immigrants of one community only to have the next one occupied by a completely different community.  These are suburbs with the most affordable housing for the lower income portion of society, particularly single mothers and fathers, young families, the working families too often appealed to by Rudd in his election campaign (to the point that I wanted to vomit), the elderly and so on.  These are the places where the heat gets hotter than in the city and are the places where air conditioning becomes important.  In some cases it is a matter of life and death.  It’s hard enough that these people don’t always have the money for the most effective and efficient air conditioning.  Quite often their systems are barely able to drop the temperature to a less oppressive level, but it is what they can get and it is better than suffering the oppressive 44+ degree heat in full force.  Fact is, the alternatives don’t cool and have limited effect.  Even the air conditioning has limited effect.  It’s so hot that the train tracks have warped and have stopped public transport.  These people need air conditioning and even the limited effects it provides.  The attitude of this government department is typical of any statist in a crisis.  They don’t understand, don’t care and there inflexibility makes our life suck.  It’s just lucky that these are only ‘guidelines,’ though it takes only one or two zealots to turn such ‘guidelines’ into enforceable legislation.

Then there’s other public figures such as Greens MP Mark Parnell, who has said,

“People should not be told not to use air conditioners, especially if their health is going to be put at risk.”

To which I would ask if people would actually give a damn what they are being told to do.  It’s Australia.  It gets fucking hot and these last few days have been extremely fucking hot.  Logically, it follows from instinctive principles of self-preservation that when it is hot, the air conditioning needs to be used to keep oneself and ones family cool, and to ensure a good nights sleep so that you may get up in the morning for work to make sure you are going to eat over the next week.  And before anyone dares point it out, I am aware of the irony of an Australian complaining about the heat — which is why it’s always amusing to see the looks on the faces of backpackers and tourists who seem to be under the impression we’re all used to it.

But to the point.  Such senseless comments from politicians make me wonder why they haven’t been dethroned yet.

However, the following comment was submitted to this editorial.

“Doesn’t matter who you vote for, a politician always gets in.”

Things mights be looking up.

EDIT: It’s good to see that ‘the public’ are at least getting to make use of something that they’re paying for, even while they’re being urged to find alternatives.

The Greeks. cont’d

By luck, I discovered the following blog post, entitled, As If By Magic… that concerns the Greek Anarchists.  Currently I am receiving little news out of Greece and the state of things while the world has turned and become complacent at the pro-state propaganda coming out of that country.  However, the article cited above stands in contrast to the horrible things being said about the Greek Anarchists in the mainstream press.

…my faith in my fellow Anarchists is restored.

The Greek anarchists have always had a rather physical relationship with the old bill and demonstrations regularly turn into pitched battles with many a molotov flung. During these clashes things get broken. Most of the time when property is attacked and/or destroyed it is symbols of wealth and is aimed at the ruling class.

Unfortunately last November a street kiosk owned by 74 year old Harikleia Ananiadou was burnt to the ground. She was left without income and with little hope of being able to start again at her age. The lack of social provision in Greece made her future seem even bleaker.

Realising what had happened a group calling itself the Anarchist Initiative raised 13,000 Euros  in order to rebuild her livelihood.

“We gave what we could, even beyond our means, because we know that it would be difficult for her to make a new start at her age,” initiative member Panagiotis Papadopoulos told Angelioforos daily. —- “It was an act of solidarity to a woman who could be our mother,” he added.

See, now that I like. Social responsibility and riotous resistance to the state.

Ausama. Obamalia. Obamatralia. Obamastralia!

In the aftermath of the Obama inauguration, in which thousands of people packed Washington DC to watch America’s first black president be sworn in, a new debate has arisen among Australians.  Senior political leaders and community activists Australia wide have found themselves swept up in the inspirational momentum following Obama’s election to the Presidency and have begun lobbying for a referendum to decide whether Australia should finalise the deal and legally become the 51st state of America.

President Barrack Obama appears to not only have secured the hearts of millions of American followers, but also the hearts of tens of thousands of Australians who sat glued to their TV screens over the many hours in which Obama’s inauguration ceremony was broadcast live over national TV. Immediately after the evening news, dining room discussions continued that heralded Obama as the new saviour of America, and hopefully Australia.

A senior member of parliament was contacted and offered his comment, “Yes, we are working to hammer out a deal that would see a hasty referendum called to determine whether the Australian states should join with the American union.  We are currently in the process of submitting a draft to the Obama administration, who will be getting back to us later in the week.  We would also like to mention that any referendum here would also have to be authorised by the Americans.  However, in the event that our proposal is rejected, we have created a second proposal that instead would lead to another referendum that would see Australia officially change its name to, ‘Little America.’ “

The recent shortcomings of Kevin Rudd, his apparent disinterest in spending too much time within Australian borders coupled with the complete lack of talent in all Australian political parties in general, are said to have left the average Australian wanting more.  This has resulted in many Australians looking to outsource their political leadership overseas.

When asked his thoughts, Joe Ocker, man on the street, commented, “Well, I dunno mate, but ol’ Kevin just doesn’t do it for me. Obama, I like ‘im.  He talks pretty and I reckon if we were to get ‘im ova here, he’d do a better job than half these c****.  And he’s gotta be good right?  I mean you can’t be worse than Bush.  That f****** couldn’t even speak prop’ly, ya know what I mean?”

Recent statistics appear to support the observed trend among Australians, as when asked on two party preferred basis, 98% of Australian’s voted Obama as their preferred leader.  Though experts remind us that these polls can be up to 2% inaccurate.

Following the inauguration, parties were held that continued throught the night with many celebrating their leader’s successful transition into the White House.

Some critics point out that Obama is not in fact the Australian President and that Australia does not in fact have a position of president.

These same critics go on to say that the iconography of Obama, various pro-Obama phrases and the unnerving levels of support for a foreign head of state are disturbing and suggest that Australian’s may be better served if they focus there attention to events unfolding in Australia while asserting that Obama may not be as awesome as he seems.  However these critics were told to shut up and were later burned at the stake.

Think of the Children!

I didn’t think it would come to this.  I honestly didn’t.  But perhaps it is time for me to float a possibly revolutionary idea.  Something that stands in contradiction to a certain idea that crops up among certain circles from time to time.  This idea is so profound that I never thought I’d have to say it in such times as these.  Indeed, I thought the debate was settled and it was considered common knowledge, but for the record, allow me to repeat it: Children are people too.

Shocked? Appalled? Yes? No?

Well whatever it may be, this thought will probably not come as a surprise to many who will read this.  What will come as a surprise to you, however, will be the idea that children are the property of their parents, still exists and rears its head every once and a while.  The notion that children inherently belong to their parent is dangerous and violates the philosophical principles we have evolved to protect the autonomy of the individual.  After all, children are human beings and to uphold the liberty of one portion of society to the detriment of another is an injustice, not to mention a breach of universality and/or equality.

Though I do not pretend to have all the answers, (I never have and would never dream to) the role of the parent or guardian is to serve as both a ward and to provide for their offspring an easy transition into autonomous life.  Both roles are essential and are commonly forgotten or abused in cases where a parent neglects a child to the point of starvation or, alternatively, becomes over protective to the point of locking their child away.  Each disrespects the individual liberty granted to the smallest of people and neither implies that the child is somehow property of the parent.  A child’s dependence does not make them akin to a piece of furniture or family pet.  No, children simply depend on the parent for survival.

It is all too often implied in these debates that the initial conception of a child, the initial act of creation between two parents, means that the product is naturally the property of the parents, just as a toy soldier would be the property of its creator, a wood carver.  However, this implied assumption holds that sex is no different from labour, which is absurd.  I’m quite sure you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would consider sex labour, unless of course the relationship is downright awful.  Regardless, if we are to consider this thought, it becomes necessary to place some time restriction which results in the parents no longer possessing total control over the child from then on.  However, to produce some arbitrary number (as governments worldwide do, generally at the ages of 18 or 21) and claim that a child becomes an ‘adult’ from that point onwards, is just as bizarre.  Each individual is unique and matures at different rates, some quicker than others.  We see the effects of such arbitrary distinctions when the legal system commits such atrocities as prosecuting teenagers for exploring their sexuality.  Opposite from this is the idea put forward by Rothbard,

The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature—in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home. – The Ethics of Liberty

Which raises the question, what happens when we have an individual of age 23, still living at home?  Are they still the property of their parent simply because they may not have the means to leave home without starving?  These individuals are fully developed individuals in both mind and body and so can be considered autonomous human beings to which we can each apply our differing philosophical principles.  However, according to Rothbard’s approach they are still, strangely, considered the property of their parents.

Further, when presented with the idea of slavery, any Anarchist worth his salt will immediately reject the concept as barbarous, for slavery has been explicitly rejected and opposed by Anarchists since its inception.  Naturally, if we were to accept the idea that children are the property of their parents, it would be no different from claiming that a slave is legitimately the property of his master.  After all, property is the right to ‘use and abuse,’ which then leaves the door open to any injustice; paedophilia, murder, assault, forced child labour and prostitution all may then be considered philosophically legitimate just as a slave master may beat, rape and murder his slave.  The child could be forced to work for no wage in a business owned by its parent or taught to use a gun and employed as a unwilling child soldier.  If we oppose slavery so intensely, we must equally oppose the idea that a parent owns a child as evil, for the concept of property, even in its varying forms, is an absolute.

Once it is understood that a child is no different from any other person, the question becomes one of how to view the relationship between parent and child.  The answer lies in mutual aid, in that the parent raises and a child and assists it as someone may assist the elderly, homeless or ill.  This is made possible because, and as unlikely as it may sometimes seem, people actually do get something out of raising a child.  A parent often comes to value the unconditional love and affection that a child will all too freely give, even if the parent is unattractive, not very good at parenting, or generally an ass.

Obviously what follows are the cases where a parent may give up their stewardship of the child for lack of ability, interest and so on.  Naturally, this forms the basis of adoption and may, again, be considered mutual aid in that it prevents the child from suffering a harsh existence for the possibility of a better one when another parent is willing to take up the responsibility of assisting it.  Granted, the system of adoption and the state of orphanages world wide is fairly low, as many foster children often wind up the victims of abuse, or even suffer psychologically which impairs them later in life.  However, there is hope that wresting such processes away from the hands of the state will improve the way in which these dealings transpire, though I would not dare offer a blueprint for how this may be achieved.  I’ll leave that to those with the knowledge, experience and inspiration.

To allow ourselves to consider children to be property, we are giving them up to a position of servitude.  The parents are raised to a position of higher authority, no matter what good intentions lead to the argument that a parent’s power is restricted by time and degree.  Such an argument is contradictory if we understand property to be an absolute and yet still wish to recognise the inherent right to liberty, irrespective of what that property theory is founded upon.