The Prophet on Polygamy

My brothers, did I not tell you that “None of you becomes a true believer until he likes for his brother what he likes for himself” and that “Being a true Muslim is achieved by loving for people what you love for yourself”?

And what can you want more fervently for your brothers than that they have wives of their own? What is more despicable, more lecherous, and more an affront to god than to deny your brothers a wife by taking all the desirable young women for yourselves?

I weep when I see rich Muslims take 2, 3, 4, sometimes even 7 young wives for themselves whilst their impoverished brothers have none and are thus forced into extreme behaviour for their chance to be happy. This is not Islam, this is greed.

I weep when I hear rumours of the rich Gulf States offering deals to Muslim governments of poorer countries to have 14 to 21 year old Muslimas come and clean their houses on temporary visas without the accompaniment and protection of their families. Why not give the job to old widowed women? Have you not had your fill of Phillipinos by now? This is not Islam.

I weep as the mullahs, imams, ayatollahs, and the other powerful use my example as an excuse for their behaviour. I married widows and divorcees, in a situation where many men had died in war and were scarce. Now there are more than enough men. Is it not Sharia Law that polygamy should be the exception? As a wise judge recently said to a man who misguidedly claimed refuge in Sharia Law for his lecherous behaviour: polygamy should be the exception, such as when the first wife is infertile or “as a part of social duty and charitable motives or when it seeks to prevent destitution”. Hoarding women for status and sexual pleasure is not Islam.

So shame on you, King Abdullah-of-11-wives! Shame on you, Bin-Laden-of-4-wives! And shame on you, all those princes and wealthy men that have followed their examples and denied wives to others by having so many yourselves!

My fatwa is that all those who have married additional wives desirable to others that you should seek out new husbands for those wives and in each instance that you meet a suitable match, you should divide your wealth in as many parts as you have wives and offer the biggest share in dowry.

Your Prophet Continue reading

Attack of the Stupids

Oh aren’t they so tough our current leaders? Beating their hairy chests over the ISIS threat to Western civilization. Here’s Cigar chompin’ Joe Hockey Wenesday morning

We will not be intimidated by the threats of murderers; we will never be intimidated as a nation or a people by the threats of murderers.

And here’s Tony Abbott, reaching for a line from his copy of George W. Bush’s classic Presidential Decision Making for Dummies.

This is a hideous movement that not only does evil. It revels in evil. It exults in evil

Have these people learned nothing from the last decade of disastrous engagement in the Middle East? It’s exactly this kind of  simplistic sloganeering that got America and its cocksure little deputy, caught up in this folly last time.

Continue reading

Viewing the broadband future

The latest cost-benefit analysis of various Australian broadband proposals is out. It’s part of a report from an inquiry chaired by former Victorian Treasury head Mike Vertigan.

And it says in essence that Australia’s expected growth in demand for bandwidth is big enough to make the NBN viable, but small enough to make the government’s alternative look better.

I would have expected to hear the report’s authors out there defending it, but Mike Vertigan has never been keen to put himself forward in the public debate. So today much of the media I saw has been dominated by critics, and they’ve mostly been saying that a useful cost-benefit analysis is impossible, so we should just build the NBN. Paul Budde was making the claim this morning on ABC Radio, and lesser-known experts such as Sydney Uni’s Kai Riemer have been saying the same thing.

This claim – that we can’t usefully analyse the NBN’s costs and benefits – is hooey.

We can’t do a precise cost-benefit analysis, given how much Internet use is likely to change over the next decade or two. And whatever analysis we do should be up-front about how much guesswork is involved. But cost-benefit analyses are not just helpful; they’re also inevitable. Indeed, everyone who says “we should just build it” actually is doing a cost-benefit analysis. Typically they’re just doing a really sloppy cost-benefit analysis in their head, and setting their median estimate of the benefits at, approximately, Unimaginably Huge.

And Unimaginably Huge is almost certainly an overstatement.

“We can’t begin to imagine what people could do with upload speeds on an industrial scale,” Riemer told News Limited.

But of course we can begin to imagine that. Here’s how. Continue reading

The Dunera: kicking off an exciting life

An excerpt from the Dunera News. (for those who don’t know, the Dunera was the prison ship on which my father was deported to Australia in 1940 with the Battle of Britain raging around them). The exerpt is an autobiographical sketch by Richard Sonnenfeldt (1923–2009)

I was brought up as a German boy but, being Jewish, was lucky enough to be sent to boarding school in England in 1938. I was deported on the Dunera, sent to Hay, but again lucky to be released along with six others, taken back to Sydney and on to the Dunera. The ship developed trouble, we were taken off at Bombay and freed – being left in the hands of the Jewish Relief Committee.
It took six months for the US Consul to verify my credentials and issue me with a US visa. I arrived in New York in April 1941 and joined my family who had caught one of the last boats out of Lisbon. I wanted to enlist but was not accepted due to being of German origin. But a further 18 months on in 1943, I was given US citizenship, drafted and served in the Infantry in Italy and France. Then with the third and seventh armies in Germany and Austria. I saw battle at the Bulge and was there at the liberation of Dachau concentration camp, something I never forgot. Continue reading

Libertarians and the privatisation of income management

Employers are prevented by law from subjecting workers to income management. What if they weren’t?

Libertarians favour freedom of contract. They believe the government’s role is to enforce contracts not tell people what should be in them. One way governments have interfered with freedom of contract is by insisting that employers pay workers in cash. Laws like the nineteenth century truck acts were designed to prevent employers from paying workers in goods or forcing them to spend their wages in company stores. This restriction on freedom of contract continues today through the Australian Fair Work Act 2009.

Recently Andrew Forrest has suggested that a Healthy Welfare Card could help welfare reliant families by preventing spending on alcohol, drugs and gambling. According to Forrest, the card could offer stability and "help the most vulnerable families manage the routines required to hold down a job."

Many people who make this argument seem to assume that once someone moves into paid work, their drinking, gambling and substance abuse problems disappear. Or alternatively, they believe that until a person manages to overcome these problems, no employer will offer them a job. But in reality there are plenty of people with full time jobs who abuse alcohol, take drugs and have gambling problems.

What if someone proposed a scheme that allowed employers to offer jobs to people on income managed welfare payments and pay them using something like Forrest’s Healthy Welfare Card? They could argue that employers would be more likely to take on someone with long standing alcohol or drug problem if they knew their wages would be spent paying off a car that they could use to drive to work rather than on beer. The card could allow more people to get jobs, stabilise their lives and become self sufficient.

Continue reading

Don’t isolate Russia | Tom Switzer

Putin currently graces the cover of Time, Newsweek, Der Spiegel and The Economist, together with a host of lesser publications. Always unfavourably of course, with the possible exception of Time where the headline is “Cold War II” and the subhead “The West is losing Putin’s dangerous game”.

In the midst of this stampede, it’s refreshing to find authors who take a longer view. Two popped up today, both writing in conservative publications and from a realist standpoint.

In “Don’t Isolate Russia” over at The American Conservative, Tom Switzer implores us to “think clearly and, if necessary, coldly, about the underlying cause of the Russia-Ukraine standoff, which sparked the military blunder.”

It [the West] has repudiated the implicit agreement between president George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990-91 that the Atlantic alliance would not extend into Eastern Europe and the Baltics, a region that Russia has viewed as a necessary zone of protection long before Stalin appeared on the scene. In so doing, the West has taken no account at all for Russian susceptibilities and interests.

For Moscow, unlike Washington and Brussels, Ukraine is a matter of intense strategic importance: it covers a huge terrain that the French and Germans crossed to attack Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries: [ . . .]

Since the collapse of Soviet communism, Western liberals and neo-conservatives have declared the demise of power politics and triumph of self-determination. But Putin’s calculations are based on an old truth of geopolitics: great powers fight tooth and nail when vital strategic interests are at stake and doggedly guard what they deem as their spheres of influence.

This is unfortunate, but it is the way the world works, and always has. Imagine how Washington would respond if Russia had signed up Panama in a military pact, put rockets and missiles in Cuba, or helped bring down a democratically elected, pro-U.S. government in Mexico.

In The National Interest, Dmitri Trenin considers Russia’s likely security strategy now that the West appears to have definitively turned against it. Continue reading

How academics, ministry experts, and civil society are losing: is the government now for the few?

The latest federal budget in Australia by the Liberal Party was a real break with the recent past in which politicians were reluctant to offend any large group of voters and in which the status quo with respect to entitlements was avidly kept. There was a bit of playing around with extra money under Labor – spent on projects like the NBN – and there were some attempts at taxing the richest sectors more, such as the carbon tax, but it was largely a case of ‘All quiet on the Western front’.

This budget was different and seems to herald a shift in orientation of our political elites, not just the Liberal Party. What seems to have happened is that the political elites now take their cue from well-organised interest groups, to the detriment of the unorganised majority, effectively trailing the US by about a decade. The US saw the same move towards a ‘money talks’ society about 10 years ago, including the lifting of the Glass-Steagall laws that were meant to prevent the kind of financial piracy that lead to the GFC. In the US the trend is again reversing, but here we are just getting to the crest of money-talks politics. This is dressed up as going towards ‘small government’, but in reality we are talking about Government for the few. It is an inequality increasing agenda that rewards topic-specific organisation. Let me expand.

As Ross Gittins has pointed out in a whole set of articles on the budget, the headline changes are quite dramatic for the majority, especially for young poor people: the Gonski reforms, benefitting the least able within the schooling system, have been axed; the Carbon Tax, a tax mainly on a couple of big firms (mines and electricity generators), has been repealed; the age-pension, which is one of the main transfer programs, has now been indexed to inflation rather than average wages, which implies a 2% reduction in relative terms per year and 25% within about 12 years; the public school system and the hospitals will similarly see their commonwealth subsidies indexed to inflation, ensuring the same 25% decline in about 12 years; the cuts in parenting support similarly hit large parts of the population, whilst the effective halving of the unemployment benefits for the young (via the 6-months-on, 6-months-off rules) are estimated by the Department of Social Services to eventually impoverish close to half a million people.

One might see all this as indications of a move towards ‘small government’ and ‘starving the beast of government of funds’. That is certainly the storyline kept up by the Coalition and one that business economists bandy around also. It was the story of the Bush years in the US. If you look closely though, you will find it is not about small government at all. For you would have missed all the areas where government just got bigger. Substantially bigger. So look at the other changes to see the full picture. Continue reading

Is the struggle for equality of opportunity over?

Equality of opportunity was one of the big themes of Gough Whitlam’s 1969 and 1972 campaigns. His 1972 policy speech promised "a new drive for equality of opportunities" through reforms to education, health and urban planning. He argued that opportunity depends on the kind of investments only government can make. In his 1985 book The Whitlam Government 1972–1975 he drew on Abraham Lincoln for support:

There is, of course, nothing novel in this idea of action by governments to promote community welfare. Before he became President, Abraham Lincoln wrote: "The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done but which they cannot, by individual effort do at all, or do so well for themselves" (p 3).

Today we’re more likely to associate this Lincoln quote with Tony Abbott or his government’s Commission of Audit. But Whitlam argued that there were important things people could not achieve on their own. Equality of opportunity was one of them. According to Whitlam, for many Australians the doors to opportunity begin closing in early childhood. In the pre-school years "inequality is rivetted on a child for a lifetime", he said. He argued that "Education should be the great instrument for the promotion of equality" but "Under the Liberals it has become a weapon for perpetuating inequality and promoting privilege." According to Whitlam, only government can make sure every Australian has access to a quality education all the way from pre-school to university.

Continue reading