Finally, the future has arrived. Would you like to book your own private space journey, for yourself and 5 friends. Please click here, and book your dream holiday today. (Terms and conditions apply. Caveat Emptor, proceed at your own risk. We are not a travel agent. etc. etc.)
Within a few years, I would expect prices to reduce substantially, and longer stays in space possible – mabye even space hotels. Wow, what an opportunity.
Some people look at Hong Kong and see it as a bastion of capitalism. Unfortunately with the growing welfare state mentality here – and Henry Tang’s obsession to widen the tax base to pay for this folly, Hong Kong is becoming less capitalistic every day. Of course, the capitalist solution is to narrow the tax base, recognizing that taxation is theft.
Others point to the property tycoons, and say they are examples of capitalism. I would beg to differ. One of the characteristics of capitalism is a free market. Yet, time after time, property companies have asked the government to intervene in the market. Indeed, they seem to be the biggest supporters of environmentalists here. Could it be that these environmentalists serve a purpose to help restrict the supply of land, thus pushing up property prices? Or to help existing building owners preserve their harbour views, at the expense of those looking to purchase a home or place to work. Whilst I support a property company’s right to build what they wish, I definitely do not support them, when they ask for special favours. I think the biggest example of a non-capitalist is Richard Li. The method seems simple. Find a market (e.g. Cyberport), then ask the government for exclusivity, to stop any competition.
If we really want more competition, more government is not the answer. The government needs to end special favours – get out of the market entirely. One could do a whole laundry list of special favours granted. These include the airline companies, power companies, property companies, and telecommunications companies. Taking airline companies, how much cheaper would airfares be if special privileges for Cathay Pacific were removed? Now just apply this to every industry, and ignore the "special cases" presented by each company that runs to the government, begging for special favours.
Henry Tang delivers "The Budget" tomorrow. I don’t know how many different ways to say this, but cut taxes and cut expenditure. Also if he calls it a pragmatic budget, it really means an unprincipled budget. Pragmatism has the principle of not being principled, just acting on what feels right without ever judging why it feels right. If one holds that justice includes rewarding the productive, then the best way to reward those that work hard is to end this idea of parasitism that has crept into Hong Kong.
Whilst Flagrant Harbour’s got a tax refund, this week’s Hemlock column is devoted to a war on taxation. Let’s put taxation in its moral (or rather immoral) place. It is an assault on the productive that threatens the initiation of force against someone because of their productivity. For example a person who can efficiently produce one million dollars of wealth is penalized for that efficiency, whilst someone else who does not wish to work can sit at home with a family of four to earn more through welfare than he would working.
This is parasitism in its most basic form.(PS parasitism is not confined to welfare cheats, how many Hong Kong tycoons rush to the government for special favours and corporate welfare?)
Obviously this cannot be changed overnight, but the first step is to start with the proper identification of what is right and what is wrong. Theft from the productive is clearly wrong.
If anyone is any doubt that religion does not try to influence governments and politics in a broad, grand scale, hopefully this post will help. Last year John Paul II called for a new world order in his New Year’s message and it appears that the new pope, Mr. Ratzinger is calling for his version of a new world order in his 2005 Xmas message.
At the end of of 2004, John Paul II is quoted as saying he wants …:
"an order that is able to give adequate solutions to today’s problems based on the dignity of the human being, on an integral development of society, on solidarity among nations rich and poor, on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technical progress."
Except for the points I have put in bold type, we already have such a system – it is called capitalism and it is not just an adequate system, it is the only efficient and moral system that allows men to lead a dignified life, based on the moral premise that their life is the proper standard of moral value. (However even here, the former pope uses a bad choice of words, for example, I think sovereignty would be a better word than dignity.)
The idea of solidarity for the sake of solidarity is a terrible idea though. It is a sick person indeed who wishes to have solidarity to with regimes like North Korea, Iran or the former Taliban in Afghanistan. The former pope also contradicts the idea of adequate solutions when he calls for the sharing of resources – He appears vague in this call, but it sounds like socialism to me.
The new pope, Mr. Ratzinger was equally vague in his call for a new world order. He is reported as saying:
"The life-giving power of his light is an incentive for building a new world order based on just ethical and economic relationships," the Holy Father added. [Holy Father Indeed!]
However Ratzinger is 1000 times worse than John Paul II and given the chance would take us back to the dark ages. To get a full idea of what Ratzinger would think is a new world order, one would have to read St. Augustine (Ratzinger’s favourite philosopher). To get a full idea of what that would be like, just think about what happened during the dark ages, when the Popes had their new world order – it was a time of religious persecution where life was nasty, brutish, lonely and short.
Economically, our world is doing pretty well right now, at least in the West. (Radical Islam is still the biggest threat and that needs to be eliminated). In general, calls for more religion, any religion will harm our prosperity. This includes calls from Ratzinger’s Catholics or George Bush’s evangelical appointees.
We need more capitalism and no religion.
Update:
According to the SCMP, Ratzinger is quoted as saying:
"The modern age is often seen as an awakening of reason from its slumbers, humanity’s enlightenment after an age of darkness," the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics said. "Yet without the light of Christ, the light of reason is not sufficient to enlighten humanity and the world."
They also say:
Since his election in April, the Pope has repeatedly reminded Catholics not to give in to an "ethical relativism" where circumstances can be used to justify actions that should be considered wrong in all cases.
Let’s take the first bit first – reason as the age of awakening from an era of slumbers. Let’s not forget that age was not age of slumber but rather of irrational persecution fueled by religious persecution of anyone who chose not to believe the church’s fairy tales. Unbelievers were tortured and justice was dispensed according to such ideas as "trial by fire". That is what he calls the "light of Christ" helped perpetuate. Indeed by calling it the "light of Christ" he is really trying to cloak an incredible evil. Reason, through science, production and capitalism have provided many, many modern achievements that the "light of Christ" would have denied. (Even today Mormons refuse blood transfusions.)
Now with regard to ethical relativism. I agree that we should not be blinded by relativism in ethics. If one holds that man’s life is the proper standard of moral value, then there can be no room for any kind of religious mysticism in a man’s realm of ethics. They would be guilty of just the kind of ethical relativism that Ratzinger seems to condemn. In this sense men should not use religion in ethics, they should not to give in to not consider an "ethical relativism" [such as religion]where circumstances can be used to justify actions that should be considered wrong in all cases.
It was an interesting day at one of the chambers of commerce in Hong Kong. They had a number of speakers there today there who were allegedly in favour of free trade. One of the problems though is that some pro free traders want to separate out the issue of free trade from the issue of politics, or want to talk about globalization in isolation from ideology.
Free trade and globalization are both effects and to achieve these, one has to look at and support the causes and the morality of such causes. The cause of these are grounded in capitalism, which is moral because it allows the individual to be free to use his own mind to make decisions. The effect of capitalism is free trade and globalization.
At the same time, some people talk about the pain of going to free markets but they are mistaken. That pain is only felt by those that are seeking continued subsidies and tariffs, the ones that prefer parasitism to personal responsibility. The rest of the population, especially the most hard working can only gain because they have more choice and less taxes. This is a good thing and if something is good, we should get as much of it as we possibly can.
