The real price of economic prosperity might be freedom
The world is entering a new dynamic which is merely a repetition of the recasting of the political, social and economic order that has happened for as long as man can write about it.
History is punctuated with the ebbs and flows of kingdoms, empires and political movements and the conflicts that are always apparent at the peripheries of influence that abuts competing interests. In the past, the cycle of influence was over, sometimes thousands and generally hundreds of years.
From the initial cultivation of land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and the Sumerian civilisation, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Qin Dynasty, the first imperial dynasty of the Chinese, to the British Empire, we notice that the rise and fall of empires accelerates as technology, personified by communications, military hardware, economic processes and other associated influences advances.
The Roman Empire existed from Romulus and Remus to the eventual destruction by the Goths and the Vandals in or around 410AD. Similarly, with it’s beginnings in China and eventual dominance of Central Asia, the Han Dynasty 202BC – 220AD was considered the ‘golden age’ in Chinese history bringing with it more than four centuries of economic prosperity. These time frames of imperial influence have now decreased to extent that the rise and fall of the Soviet Empire happened within one century.
What we see is the acceleration of the political timeframe. Right now, we might be correct in seeing the signs of the collapse of Pax Americana. I dearly hope not because of the values prevalent in that society which, although not perfect, have been substantial in advancing and protecting the liberties of the individual across the globe more so than anything that ever preceded it. Whilst acknowledging this advancement we must also take into account the platform of the British parliamentary system.
The one thing we are certain of is nature abhors a vacuum. This emerging vacuum, which would be caused by the demise of America, will mirror nature in that it will be replaced by the most proximate and prominent power, being the Communist Peoples Republic of China.
The reason I say communist is that they are a communist government. The people who are encompassed by their boundaries have never had the benefit of the democratic process of election and the communist government is not a government that represents the wishes of the public mandate and the aspirations of the individual. Communism is circumscribed by the control of the centralist state and its accompanying dictate.
It is a government whose influence revolves around the aspiration of a particular clique and their prescribed ethos that keeps their power unchallenged.
The ethos of the communist government is reflected in the actions and laws that are currently prevalent in China and the way it sanctions the adoption of the same or similar ethos in countries and regions such as the Sudan, North Korea, Burma, or Tibet.
The detention of Australian citizen Stern Hu is exceptional to our expectations in Australia because the ethos, so central to our democracy, has led us to a naïve belief, that our judicial principle, tilted towards the right of the individual to live in a quiet enjoyment in their own expression of thoughts, movements and pursuit of their own personal aspirations, is universal.
We think that the democratic principle is the birth right of every human being. Communist China is one regime, amongst many, which should display to us that the vast majority on this planet do not live in a version of democracy, or any form of rights and liberties, that bears any real resemblance to our expectations here in Australia.
The question we must ask in Australia is, should our belief of the right of the individual be something that is of such calibre that it should be promoted to all, or is it something that should be withheld for enjoyment by a selected few.
Alternatively do we allow the sponsorship of the diminution of the ethos that protects the right of the individual because the price is right?
Do we allow the ownership of our nations resources such as coal, uranium, iron ore, the rare earth in the ground, the actual ground and its agricultural capacity, to be transferred to the sovereign ownership of another nation which displays a totalitarian principle in how it deals with its own and how it deals with others. The transfer of process from their nation if carried out in our nation would be the destruction of all that we hold dear.
Do we develop a convenient commercial blindness because the price is right? If we do, can we sit in judgement of others in history, especially those in the last century, who did precisely the same thing because it was commercially viable to not look too deeply into who you are dealing with?
The human aspiration has battled for sixty or so thousand years in its endeavour to deliver the highest level of freedom to the individual and to grant that freedom as a right to the next generation. Is it now logical to sponsor this disintegration back to a centralist despotism?
It might be convenient to live in the opulence of the short term pecuniary benefit that can be attained by turning a blind eye, but what is the legacy that you leave to your progenitors?
No philosophy that is associated with a political movement can promulgate its beliefs without a primary resource to underpin it. The primary resource which is the source of its wealth. If you do not hold that primary resource you must secure its source by what ever means are available.
No one listens to you from the pulpit of poverty or in the subjugation of the pews. This is neither an argument about race, colour, nor religion.
It is certainly a challenge as to what our belief structure is and to when we believe it might be convenient to put it aside.
Every day Stern Hu, a man with Australian citizenship, remains detained without charge or fair judicial process, is a day that exemplifies in greater clarity what is precious in Australia and should be promoted, not just for us, but for all.
Every day we make excuses, we belittle our core philosophical belief in the right of the individual.
Every day we use expediency as an excuse for why we cannot more effectively ventilate our belief in the rights of the individual, which are so evidently curtailed for one of our own citizens; we say quite clearly that the values of those protections of the individual appurtenant to the citizenship of our nation, are conditional, not explicit.
The condition is that the individual’s right has a price that is not determined by guilt or innocence, but is determined by commercial expediency.
This corruption of our philosophical belief diminishes us all and takes our nation, which is still at a formative stage, to a lesser article than it could be and a dimmer beacon than it should be.
Read all about it
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
The latest and greatest
Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…
I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…
In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…