Auckland City Council struggles with rail transport funding model

Originally published
November 15, 2014 Andrew Sheldon Civics, Economics, Finance, Governance, Markets, New Zealand, Politics 

It should come as no surprise that any decision by government is destined to be ‘political’. By ‘political’ we mean that decisions are destined to convey extorted influence rather than any commercial or analytical consideration of costs, benefits or impacts, with still less any real or effect accountability. What sustains political debates over city planning is ‘fear of environmental catastrophe’. What suspends or defers any debate on the issue is a ‘fear of exaggerated influence by vested interests’, and what inevitably gives a city constituents reason for cynicism is the realisation of the uncertain costs, or the open-endedness of those costs, which few people understandably don’t want to bare. The reality is that it does make sense for a city to have a rail network – but only in certain cases with conditions dictate that it is a prudent commercial decision. It likewise makes sense for a city to have a plan, to develop a rail system in a cost-effective manner so that costs of living can be contained, and that any such planning conveys ‘integrated interconnection of services in the best interests of all constituents, and not simply the indulgent hopes of vested interests, real or exaggerated.

Until now Auckland has been defined by a ‘city centre’, namely Auckland City CBD. The reality however is that such ‘city centres’ defined by zoning restrictions are very costly. It makes far more sense to have a multitude of city centres connected by efficient transport connections. The best evidence of such efficiency is the costs of pre-existing ‘connectors’, and the corresponding costs of not having them. It does not mean you don’t have central hubs ‘like a city centre’, it means that you expand the city so that it has multiple hubs which are well-integrated.

The appeal of course is that a ‘centralised city’ with a single core tends to compel everyone to live in a small area, which results in a number of problems:

1. Congestion – There is a need for a large portion of the city population to travel a long distance to reach a focal point, whilst a ‘satellite city model’ allows people to live in a broader range of places, and to consider rail transport as a ‘best option’. There is actually considerable opportunity for people to travel across city in previously impossible directions, ensuring a better balance in traffic flow, ensuring that there is less ‘entrenched polarity’ in traffic flows.
2. Uncompetitiveness – When a city is geared towards the pre-eminence of one location then compelling structural barriers arise preserving or embedding the ‘structural’ position of that centre. That allows some people to profit at the expense of others simply because they have political pull others don’t, or because they have been allowed to preserve the pull they historically had. An extortion-based political system is destined to do that, and the costs and burdens arising are the reason to break down not just the rules that permit it, but to radically reform the political system that makes such political patronage or privilege possible.
3. Cost disparities – It is far cheaper to rent city apartments or office space under a ‘distributed urban model’ and to commute to other offices for appointments. A centralised city model would likely require an expensive taxi trip compared to a ‘distributed city model’, which will likely see a commuter walk 5 minutes to a train station, wait 3-5 minutes for a train, and then take a further 5 minutes to reach a location. In contrast, getting a taxi can take 2-20 minutes, and you can wait in traffic queues delaying arrival at a destination for 20-30 minutes. This explains why few Japanese people get taxis, and why they are so expensive. Another way of looking at the problem is to consider comparative rents. Rent can be expected to be 30% cheaper for a satellite CBD (saving say $400 per month, or $12 a day). The differences in parking are less apparent if a city ‘enforces’ strong provisions for underground parking. Auckland has yet to do this I suspect, or perhaps this is merely a legacy of the old system. The cost of travel is relatively comparable under either model. The system captures more customers, but it requires more infrastructure.

This model of a ‘super-city’ is best illustrated by Tokyo City. Tokyo City comprises 23 inner wards. These inner wards are effectively integrated by a single ‘efficient’ rail loop line called the Yaminote Line. Trains on thin line come every 3 minutes, and they will take you to the most substantial satellite CBD’s in Tokyo (all 20 of them) in a matter of 25 minutes. This central line gives great connection to any number of ‘spoke’ lines that run off into the suburbs and outer satellite cities, to the various airports, port districts, inter-city rail connectors and so forth. These ‘spoke lines’ also provide access to the core of the city. There is often 1-2 ways to get to any place in the city, so you need to work out where to change to get there in the most optimal time. The trains are so frequent that you don’t really need to fuss over which is the best way.

In the spirit of this idea, I have roughly sketched out a possible system that outlines a staged rail development that would integrate rail & ferry terminals. The implication is that there could be opportunities for people to commute by ferries to work as well. Of course in future, more ‘ring or loop lines’ could be added, as has been the case with the extensive Sydney network. In comparison, the Japanese system does not function as ‘ring lines’, but rather as ‘spoke’ and ‘branch’ lines extending off the main ring line. The Yaminote ‘ring line’ serving the central core of Tokyo City is functionally the most important line in the system. It is also connected to several low-traffic loop lines servicing Hanada Airport and the port district.

This ‘mock network’ does not attempt to ‘build upon’ the existing Auckland rail network. It matters little how the network is shaped since the network itself will transform the way people live. What is important is:

1. The regulatory regime that shapes people’s decisions
2. The barriers to rail and commercial development which determine the cost structure and commercial returns possible, as well as determining the level of competition.

Political obstructions defer rail developments

In contrast to Japan, where rail development was made by quasi public-private corporations, which were comprehensively integrated with commercial developments from the start; in Auckland, the government decides. This means that there is a lot of ‘vested interests’ who are ‘legally enabled’ or ‘politically enabled’ to jump in and cause legal obstructions, as well as mobilising support bases to extort some concession, so that commercial efficiency is no longer ‘attainable’.

When the rail development model is directed by governments, it is destined to be a quagmire where sub-optimal decisions are made. Any vested interest is able to  elicit ‘self-serving’ standards (as a form of economic rent) upon expensive projects, even though these interest groups have no direct equity interest. Their arrogance arises from the fact that:

1. They have the decadent right to self-expression
2. They have the unreasonable right to impose their ideas on others under our political system

Notwithstanding their influence over others and their lack of direct involvement with the project, they are still able to influence or ‘scare’ others into submission, by using fear or misrepresentations (i.e. misuse of valid data or use of unsubstantiated data) to achieve a disproportionate influence over a state project. They achieve this influence because they are able to forge ‘special privileged relationships’ with political leaders, and because most of the people don’t have that influence, or because they are ambivalent about what their political leaders are doing under a sanction they bestowed upon them by voting for them. Voting is the ultimate threat since it represents the people giving power of attorney to a ‘stranger’ to do as they please. Notwithstanding their influence, these powerful partners also have some influence, and that is to impart their own threats upon decision-makers. The fact that these ‘decision-makers’ are pursuing ‘self-interested’ projects or are intimidated into submitting to powerful interests in the name of some  ‘public spirited’ endeavour really never comes under any scrutiny, because there will be no expectation or monitoring to ensure that these projects are even profitable.

This has proven the case with the Auckland rail system; except the paranoia has been instilled on both sides of the political divide because there are:

1. Liberals who want to build environmental projects
2. Conservatives who don’t want to spend on services they don’t personally use

For this reason, councillors have withdrawn their immediate support for a rail development. Auckland Mayor Len Brown has secured $2.2 billion of funding for rail in the latest 10-year budget. The first priority is a 3.5km underground rail link to commence construction in 2016 for completed in late 2020.[i] It remains to be seen whether he can bring all the councillors onside. The concerns of councillors are:

1. The cost to be borne by the toll payers – some want the national or City government to carry some of the burden
2. Against the possible impact of city government debt on future rates

For this reason it is possible the rail development will be deferred until 2020.

The libertarian perspective

The problem with the prospect of a government-driven rail project is that the project is destined to be poorly executed. The best solution is for the project to be funded by:

1. A private developer which is able to develop a funding model based upon:
   • Commercial development sub-contractor provisioning
   • Fixed price commitments for the rail services provided – at least until such a time that there is competition in the market place
2. A government that sets certain ‘reasonable’ parameters within the ‘rail corridor’ zones as well as development zones, so that prospective private sector developers can investigate the merits of those options. These parameters will include:
   • Provisions for open spaces and car spaces
   • Provisions for noise reduction and limits on route corridors
   • Provisions to facilitate transport system connectivity
3. Any prospective private operator can establish commercial commitments with owners of properties so that they are able to finance the development, whilst undertaking preliminary contingency studies at their own cost for engineering, commercial due diligence, etc.

“The $2.4 billion City Rail Link could be deferred until 2020 because of mounting concerns by councillors about its impact on rates, debt and big cuts to community services”.[ii]

There is actually no reason for the government to put in any money. There is no reason for city residents to put money into the project directly unless they are using the project. The best approach to the development of such rail corridors is for:

1. Objective standards of value to be established as fundamental criteria, i.e. noise levels, building heights, minimum public space requirements, tunnel design & safety (i.e. ventilation) requirements, car parking provisioning. These standards can be common law standards or standards established in the same manner.
2. Private rail system developers to determine best route, appropriate commercial terms with commuters and commercial sub-developers who will profit from land developments in the precinct of the rail stations.
3. Private rail system developers to determine quantify whether the project can proceed on the basis of objective standards of compensation. The private operator pays the cost of any ‘excess’ or ‘non-compliant noise’ or safety breaches.

There is a great opportunity for Auckland to have an efficient rail system without anyone paying for a government ‘white elephant’. The problem with government-sponsored projects is that there is no limit to the money that they can throw at them – without account or consequence – to give you the “experience you expect”, at whatever cost you will endure. In contrast, a commercial operator acting under a framework of objective law, is required to meet your “reasonable expectations” at a cost accepted by the ‘discretionary’ user of their services. Those costs would be borne through:

1. Direct payment of train fares
2. Indirect payment by paying for goods, where the merchant has paid for the opportunity to gain access to customers through such a ‘transport hub’. He passes some of his costs on to customers (who are in a competitive market place) so that he can make a profit.

In contrast, the reason why ‘big business’ often likes politicians like Len Brown is because the business community is ‘subsidised’ by allowing them to profit from the establishment of such hubs, and for you the taxpayer, to pay the cost of the hub, whilst they profit from:

1. Their good fortune to have ‘lobbied’ government to have a station established near their land holdings
2. Their ‘good fortune’ to have ‘lobbied’ the government to place the burden of transport systems placed upon the taxpayer, as if they should be the sole beneficiary of those services, because they create jobs (i.e. they lobby).

Working “village city” communities

There will be those people who will object to the development transformations to take place, but in fact ‘small cities’ make very liveable spaces, and again Japan shows the way. On a recent visit to Japan I took some pictures of how Japan has created very liveable communities with ‘modern commercial precincts’, ‘old-fashioned’ entertainment precincts with narrow roadways lined with restaurants, bars and craft shops in places like Hibarigaoka. There are roads with ample provision for bicycles in places like Iruma City. In fact, most Japanese people rely on rail and bicycles to meet their transport needs. Cars tend to be used by parents (with kids) and everyone on weekends. Even then it will be rare that Japanese people will go further than their local sporting grounds, restaurants or bars. Most shopping is done locally at these ‘city villages’. Of course many will use a car to go skiing or hiking. But again, many people will use public transport. It is probable however that most of the councillors in Auckland have not bothered to investigate the approaches that other nations have taken to meet their transport needs.

“[On the 5^th Nov 2014] all 20 councillors and the mayor will debate the budget and make decisions on the rail project for public consultation”. [iii]

Will they be well-informed or will their decisions simply be a reaction to the narrow expectations of mobilised ‘lobbyists’ who don’t really analyse the broader ramifications of public transport.

“The Government has agreed to fund half the project, but will not make a financial commitment until 2020, unless the council meets rail patronage and downtown employment targets”. [iv]

Observe that there is no requirement to meet any commercial criteria. The implication is that the government is not being terrible considerate of customer patronage, and that is evident enough from the fact that the government is prepared to force upon the community ‘another tax’.

Financing rail transport under government

The huge cost of the rail link would cause a $12 billion transport funding gap over the next 30 years unless alternate funding is secured – namely:

1. Motorway tolls and regional petrol taxes
2. Cut from community projects, parks and local works
3. Increases local government taxation

“The options are for an overall rates rise of 2.5% in 2015 and 3.5% for the next 9 years, or a 3.5% rate rise every year plus a $3000 charge upon new houses”.[v]

This is not the best approach to providing services to the poor, or users, or even achieving some level of ‘commercial discipline’ in our urban areas. Our cities are the most important economic systems in the country. If they are not based upon commercial discipline or ‘realities’ or price constraints, then taxpayers are destined to experience a blow-out in costs, on top of the costs that the mayor and councillors have previously imposed upon rate payers. There is actually no reason why residents of Auckland need to pay more. They should only pay more if they get benefits. The only motivation for government officials to embark on such policies is if:

1. They are so beholden to public pressure that they convey no personal integrity
2. They are positioning themselves for a litany of kickbacks from business who are destined to be subsidised by such developments, and who will be reliant upon government as ‘gatekeepers’ presiding over these developments.
3. They get the opportunity to act like Santa Claus, identified as the crusaders for development, without a corresponding requirement to be accountable for their flagrant spending.

This is an enormous spend for a city. It should not fall upon ill-disciplined councillors who have little experience to handle the affairs of such an immense project, and given a blank cheque to meet any indulgent expectation of lobbyists, who ultimately keep these councillors in power. Many councillors are sensitive to the ‘cost backlash’ of such policies. i.e. Labour councillor Ross Clow has called for the project to be deferred until 2020. These is however no reason to defer. The only necessity is for the project to be carried by those people who can afford the luxury of wanting it to risk investing in it. There will be a ready market of people who should pay, who will want to benefit, whether they are:

1. Residents who want to live in inner-city apartments close to transport and ‘village cities’. Another example is Chatswood in Northern Sydney.
2. Commercial businesses who want to profit, who are prepared to pay more for property and high rents in order to get access to that greater street traffic that arises from ‘denser living’.
3. Finally rail system developers who want to develop a long term ‘cash cow’ by offering prospective residents a ‘village community’ and cheaper and faster access to jobs than is currently offered by cars on tollways. Residents in these places will save on bus fares or car parking fares in the city, as well as securing more options and great accessibility to services in other communities.

Labour councillor Ross Clow argues that the budget was gutting suburban areas such as Avondale, which had been waiting 30 years for a new town centre, in favour of “pet projects” like the City Rail Link. [vi] There is really no reason for people to wait if a road upgrade makes sense, but it ought not to ‘make sense’ because it benefits a councillor to say so. There needs to be objective criteria.

Taking the transport funding burden off cities

There is really no reason why people have to wait for a centralised, inefficient, politicised ‘poorly skilled’ bureaucratic culture to act as ‘gatekeeper’ for the provision of basic services. It is a false economy that has proven not to work. In Tokyo, people on the fringes of Tokyo pay property rates as low as $300 a year because they only buy the land they need for a house. A 1-hour commute to the city centre costs just $4. There is no concession for a return trip like in Sydney. Most commuters going daily to the city will instead decide to rent in an inner city, low-rise 40m2 apartment complex for $700/month. They will pay just Y200 ($US2) each way. In most cases, workers commuting costs are borne by the company (up to a certain amount). The prospect of paying $2500/month in Auckland, a far smaller city, and an additional $200/month for parking because the city transport system is so bad, is simply ridiculous cost impositions arising because of political mismanagement of basic infrastructure. Communities won’t miss out on infrastructure if the government is not the centre for funding and decision-making. Autocratic regimes inevitably collapse. We are witnessing the collapse of Auckland City Council as a ‘decision-making hub’. It needs to become a far smaller centre for setting objective standards for universal & fundamental conduct, whether it be noise limits, or safety measures. They should not have the arbitrary capacity to impose any standard upon people, and they should not be a gatekeeper for decision-making. They are only arresting the development and prosperity of Auckland, and the same folly is being mirrored in other regions around NZ, as well as other countries. The council is responsible for the excesses in property prices. New Zealanders are paying as much for property – in a city with just 1.5 million residents – as they are in Tokyo – a city with 22 million residents. This is because NZ councils are able to restrict land development to artificially raise council rates.

It is precisely the spectre of huge planned budgeted costs like $20 million to widen Whangaparaoa Road, which is why these decisions need to be made in a broader context than the government can handle. There are simply too many long-range decisions to be made, and the risks of waste are enormous; which is why those risks and costs should be carried privately by developers, and not by the taxpayer who is oblivious to the real cost of what they are funding. Why can’t Aucklanders enjoy the same low rates as the Japanese – at least as an option. I’m sure the low-income earners of Auckland would love such consideration and discretion. You therefore have to wonder whether Len Brown and his colleagues are really the ‘liberals’ they profess to be, or whether they are serving their own interests.

References to quotes

[i] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[ii] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[iii] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[iv] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[v] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

[vi] “City Rail Link faces delay until 2020”, Bernard Orsman, NZ Herald, website, 3^rd Nov 2014.

Anarchocapitalism and the curse of corrupting political patronage

Originally published by
March 19, 2017 CMG Editor Andrew Sheldon, Governance, New Zealand, Our World, Philosophy,Politics 

Governance has waxed and waned in credibility or legitimacy for a long time. In the time of monarchs there were weak or ineffectual kings, and before that emperors, who came perilously close to losing power, if not actually having power wrestled from them. It is no different today; however it is not a political dynasty in question, but the future of representative democracy.

Change often takes time; particularly political change. But change can conversely be very rapid. This is not to say that its inexplicable, or that its not be advocated by certain interests, or that even certain interests are giving ‘the proscription’ a name that, may or may not resonate with people’s understanding of the concept, if they have any grasp of it at all. The reality is that ideas or political imperatives are destined to be thrust upon people, and people will either learn to live with the result, or they will eventually rise up to overturn it. But do they ever really understand either way?

Consider the education system or religious conviction that is firmly entrenched in our society. I am reminded of the fact that people are far more aware today that religion has been ‘institutionalised’ or perverted in order to achieve political imperatives, than people were aware decades ago, or even in ancient times. The same can be said of ‘modern education’. Despite being hatched in the late 20th Century, people are oblivious to the origins of the Western education system. Given that its origins is Prussia, they might question whether Germany truly lost the war, or did the West succumb to the more pervasive impact upon Western individualism. After all, aren’t we struggling with the same concepts today, as during pre-war Germany. If education has become ‘well-entrenched’, precisely what has been entrenched? The reality is that the way we even appraise ‘education’ is a pretty low standard. We measure it in terms of literacy and numeracy, but explore the issue a little longer and you realise that the capacity to think is a far greater source of efficacy, and yet I can scarcely find 10% of any population that can do it, or whom take pride in it. Reflect still further on this ’empowered 10%’ and you find that they are predisposed to defend the conceptual framework in which they have been indoctrinated. That is usually the overriding political ‘democratic’, ‘religious’ and ‘unconditional love’ framework.

The following chart is interesting insofar as it shows the Google Trends for the ‘search results’ for the words ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’, anarcho-capitalism’, ‘Marx-Leninism’ and ‘Anarcho-syndicalism’ over the entire global over the period 2004-2017. It is apparent that conventional ideologies that are taught in schools are well-placed in terms of popular views. The patronage or interest in these schools is understandable given that they are the academic ‘subject interest’ for university students over the world. Just an example of governments telling us what ought to be the subject of thought. Interest in relatively new schools, like anarchocapitalism and anarcho-syndicalism is relatively mute.They hardly register much interest at all. Unsurprisingly, given that both of these schools repudiate government coercion. So, don’t expect a university professors to extol a value system that would not justify them taking a job that involves theft of government money. Nor should you ever expect a government-funded academic to concede that they have a ‘conflict of interest‘. Expect instead academics to repudiate the school of thought, or anyone who supports it.

If we however focus only on these left and right ‘anarchist’ schools, we might however be enamoured by the fact that there is a clear winner in political interest. Anarcho-capitalism has secured a far greater interest than anarcho-syndicalism. These trends are telling because these political ideologies are hardly taught in universities, so there is no academic-inspiration for them beyond the academics who founded these ideologies. Yes, it seems that academics occasionally can foster good ideas despite their conflict of interest. This is not unsurprising – but don’t expect it. This is validated by the fact that most academics are exponents of ‘big government’. A few percent would be exponents of ‘small government’ minarchism, and of course a handful would be anarchists. I would however expect more left anarchists in academia than right anarchists. This is not to say anarchists can’t come to a persuasive justification for remaining in academia.

Anarcho-capitalism was a term coined by Murray Rothbard to describe ‘competitive authority’. I would argue that the foundation of anarcho-capitalism is the advancement of ‘jurisdictional competitive authority’. After all, we have different authority today, but because they function as ‘non-competitive’ jurisdictions in terms of:

1. Geographic jurisdictions like the divide between NZ and Australia or North & South Carolina, there is no effective competition.It is true that you could migrate from one state to another, but it is harder to migrate between countries, so such ‘competition’ is ineffectual if you are destined to be punished for such decisions.
2. Subject jurisdiction is another division in governance or authority structures, however they are not points of competitiveness, but rather points of conspiracy, insofar as it erects barriers to responsibility and accountability. Observe that national governments have powers over local governments, but they don’t intervene to serve the interests of local constituents. They only intervene to protect their own interests. The motivation of this ‘compartmentalisation’ is to avoid a competitive framework between local, regional and state politics. For the same reason, you get local and regional authorities avoiding disclosure on issues, in an attempt to avoid a competitive fire-fight that could only make both local and regional government ‘competitive’ and ‘accountable’.

The reason why anarcho-capitalism avoids this ‘uncompetitiveness’ between authorities is because there is no monopoly, and constituents have the discretion to shift their sanction or financial resourcing, or simply to suspend their financing, though that would not be sensible. You would always want to be associated with ‘your own gang’, as one would otherwise be placing oneself in a position of vulnerability. Now this is the scary aspect of anarcho-capitalism, the spectre of ‘gang land welfare’. What people don’t realise however is that ‘gang land welfare and extortion’ exists because of government. Consider two reasons why:

1. Gangs exist off the tit of government welfare.If you think that there is welfare abuse or entitlement in your country; rest assured that gang members are at the forefront of organised criminal abuse of the welfare system, so that any criminal activity in the private sector is effectively financed by government. Now, the reason why governments don’t rein in this abuse is because they would have to restraint a lot of people who are construed as ‘deserving recipients’, and aren’t these people ‘innocent until proven guilty’?
2. Duopoly alienation is the enviable burden’ of having to pay the extortive taxes of two regimes that profess to serve you. Picture the Philippines, where farmers in isolated rural areas are obliged to pay taxes to governments, but they are also obliged to pay ‘taxes’ to the National People’s Army (NPA) who emerge from the neighbouring jungles to extort money to engage in sabotage of public infrastructure paid by taxes, but ultimately not hurting the custodians of said infrastructure, whose interests lie far away.  If these farmers had the discretion to spend their resources locally, they would not be at the behest of the NPA. But centralised authorities have no interest in distributive power structures.

So we have both a conceptual definition of anarcho-capitalism, and a practical justification for anarcho-capitalism. This however is not the proper foundation for anarcho-capitalism. The justification for anarchocapitalism does not lie in ‘evidence of anarcho-capitalism’. That would have condemned humanity to never venturing out of the cave, or into space. The justification for anarcho-capitalism lies with philosophy. We build a philosophical justification for anarcho-capitalism. This is what Ayn Rand did, and she did a pretty good job, though her framework is not without errors. Such a justification is the subject of books, not a short article. If I was to critique a person, I would start with politics, and draw the opponent into ethical, then epistemic arguments and finally metaphysics. But if I was to mount a philosophical justification for anarcho-capitalism, then I would start with metaphysics.

Today, I am simply defining anarcho-capitalism and drawing people’s attention to its ascension into the mainstream of political thought – not because of academic entrenched mysticism – but in spite of it.

‘Conflict of interest’ arguments are a measure of media hypocrisy

Originally published by Andrew Sheldon
March 24, 2017 CMG Editor Americas, Andrew Sheldon, Authors, Governance, Middle East,Philosophy, Politics 

In the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential election and beyond, the globe has been bathing in a media ‘blood bath’ that centered upon a scathing rebuke of a single man – ‘Donald Trump’. Surprisingly, the man is not just ‘still standing’, he has been elected to the office of President of the United States. This perverse outcome has hardly served as a source of reflection by the media. The exact opposite ensued, with the media scaling up their focused attempts to discredit him. You have to ask yourself ‘why’. I would suggest that there are several reasons, and they rest on the premise that, as much as lay people might like to think that certain people don’t have principles, or a moral point of reference. The fact is, they have a deeply entrenched code of values.

The problem is not their ‘absence of morality’, it’s the fact that whatever they believe, it is so perversely antithetical to evidence. Their knowledge is built upon a framework of assumptions, misconceptions and selective lines of evidence. They are essentially clinging to a ‘perspective they cannot defend’, and the more evidence that confronts them, the more important ‘false positives’ become, and the more desperate they come in their efforts to avoid the truth by grasping hold of  ‘false positives’. It’s not a conspiracy to lie, so much as a preference for clinging to a ‘world view’, in the vain hope of feeling ‘in control of one’s life’. Even sincere attempts to consider lines of evidence can readily descend into a framework of rationalisations. Such efforts can be surprisingly sophisticated, reflecting either people’s apparent respect for truth, or their greater intelligence, or pride in their mental efficacy. In any case, the result of this ‘inner conflict’ is a predilection for lies.

The bigger problem is that, not only is the prevailing political system not well-designed to arrive at ‘truth’; it is also really good at facilitating the creation of ‘mass organised extortion rackets’ intent upon fostering ‘their lies’, that stand in opposition to other’s lies. Whether you consider these organisations organised crime, gangs, political parties, lobbyists, foundations, schools of (intellectual??) thought, they all serve the same purpose. Their intent is to make people feel good, safe or comforted in the knowledge that they will get something for nothing. There is no question that some ‘schools’ are more credible than others, but in the context of a political system that rewards ‘democratic’ extortion, I would not expect high standards.

At root however, it might be construed as simply a tribalist, globalist perspective, where members of the ‘mob’ are seeking the positive affirmation of a shared crusade. This affirmation can be a ‘spiritual’ or remunerative affirmation, such as higher bonus payouts. In any case, it’s a predilection to protect one’s ego, or to ascend to a higher aspiration. Fear or greed are of course the underlying motivators, however there is something more basic than these desires; and it’s the notional ‘world view’ that your pursuit of values (i.e. greed), or your avoidance of loss (i.e. fear) depend ultimately, not on what you do, but how prepared you are to question those values. There are a lot of justifications to sabotage this reflection, starting with external peer pressure, busy schedules, material vested interests and ‘effort’. A preparedness of people to question or reflect is the most basic intellectual proclivity that differentiate people, and yet it scarcely goes noticed by people, or understood as the basis for change. It is the anonymity or the safety of Facebook that gives people some confidence to do this, but it is arguably the discretion to choose a group where your ego will not be bruised too much, or where one can learn passively by watching one’s peers face criticism at other’s hands. Criticism is nevertheless good for one’s constitution. It makes us stronger ‘mentally’, although some of us would have none of that; and yet those people so hostile to criticism tend to be the most ardent of critics.

Such conflicts divide people between:

1. Tragic souls who find the world unfathomable, and see no respite when they glean an eye upon their fellow man. They only see the tragedy of the human spirit.
2. Optimistic souls who find the world intelligible, if they only focus their intellectual efficacy upon it

Why globalist ambitions? Simply because in the midst of disempowerment, there is a proclivity to reach higher, for respite from one’s counterparties. That imbues one with a need to ‘look higher’, whether to the false god of government, or a fictitious comforting god in the skies. Even science can serve as a god of sorts. The same is true with the law. Everything is a dogmatic advocacy that seeks to quash dissent. There is no interest in engaging people, or being engaged.

The reasons are clear: You need to educate people because democracy is a ‘sanctioning system’ for extortion. Your political opponents carry a legal sanction to coerce. Of course no one thinks extortion is good or justified, and yet they are begrudging advocates of democracy. There are basically two reasons:

a. They have a ‘subjective’ notion of reality. i.e. What’s right for you is right for you, and I’m different. This is a compartmentalised repudiation of human nature. Such people get lost in the ‘complexity of human nature’. They might well argue that we are ‘same’ and ‘different’. It is the difference that serves as a point of equivocation and rationalisation, rather than for contextual insight. It is an pathway for escape rather than to new knowledge.

b. Alternatively, they can have a skeptic’s notion of reality. In this case, they acknowledge that humanity probably has a nature. But how can we be sure that we can know it? Can we trust our judgement? Such people are predisposed to silence their mind, forever wondering about it, ensuring that it remains in an intellectual fog.

Both groups of people are motivated by inexplicable ideas. Either ‘practically’, you just become another school of thought, or they are compelled to diminish other’s ‘certainty’, as that is a threat to them. The more intellectual connections you identify that challenge their established incomprehension, the more you displease said people.

You can imagine that the journalists behind these news agencies pat each other on the back, and get a lot of validation from their colleagues. But that is a source of relativist ‘validation’; it isn’t truth. Truth is not their concern. They are paid for articles that engage readers. That means appealing to people’s fears, apprehensions, greed and practical interests, and serving your employer along that path. What is good for a journalist is also good for their employer.

So what is the concern of the media, if not the ‘truth’?

Well, Bloomberg has a story based on some of its internal investigative journalism that has ascertained that Donald Trump has a ‘conflict of interest’ on the premise that:

• Donald Trump’s administration has selected certain Muslim-majority countries as being subject to stricter vetting for entry into the United States, after he failed to achieve tighter regulations before a Supreme Court intervention.
• The Trump administration has not adopted restrictions on other countries that also have Muslim majorities, and the premise is that Trump’s family has investments in those countries

This is of course a ridiculous argument to make, and it arises due to the application of a popularised ethical misconception. That misconceptions has become the foundation for media reporting, and in so doing, it becomes a widespread standard for ethical judgement, and it goes without reproach because the media are not readily open to accountability. at least not condemnation. Certainly people can stop buying media content, but the media vets their own criticism. More concerning perhaps is that the media don’t display much integrity. i.e. They don’t seem to subject themselves to the same ‘conflict of interest’. Consider the following:

• Bloomberg didn’t expose the ‘conflict of interest’ by the Clinton Foundation
• Bloomberg can be seen to take a very favourable position on the receipt of payments from foreigners and foreign governments, when said acts are performed by parties aligned with Bloomberg

This is strong evidence that Bloomberg didn’t just ‘miss a story’, but that its journalists ‘as a collective’ [subjected you would think to homogeneous standards of ‘due diligence’] arrived at a media content decision that is inconsistent. This would be construed as a ‘conflict of interest’, and a bias. This isn’t just a question of different people adopting different personal standards that can be ‘reined in’. This is a ‘corporate value’ decision. This is a conflict of interest if it is involved in some game of political patronage. The conflict of interest might well extend to the Republican Party. But we can be sure that Bloomberg is not accepting of Trump, given that he has taken the Republican Party away from its patronage of ‘the Establishment’.  Trump has become a considerable threat for that reason. It doesn’t mean that Trump doesn’t represent another group of extortionary interests. That remains to be seen. It remains to be seen if there is a ‘moral, fair-minded’ corporate sub-culture in the USA, or whether there is just a number of vying corrupt corporate interests. In any case, ‘competition is good’, and that is no less true of governance, which is why I have been an advocate of anarchocapitalism, or competitive governance.

But we might well ask – ‘What is in fact a ‘conflict of interest’? 

A conflict of interest is a situation where a person takes advantage of their position to derive personal benefit from the decisions made in their official capacity as a public custodian.

Aside from having prohibitions or disclosure requirements with respect to personal conflict of interests in certain countries, we might well ask, ‘what is wrong with a ‘conflict of interest’ from a moral standpoint, given that laws ought to be arrived at by moral argument?

Surely the problem with a ‘conflict of interest’ is not:

1. It is bad to benefit from one’s actions – This is the natural and proper proclivity of every person, as long as they don’t profit at the expense of others. In actual fact, his wealth has fallen since he took office, despite a general rise in the market.
2. It is wrong to be deceptive – There is no evidence of lying or concealing his affairs. i.e. Trump is lawfully not required to disclose his private tax returns. Nor has Trump secretly built hotels around the world or attempted to hide his policy position.
3. It is wrong to say one thing and do another – There is no argument to say Trump changed his position because he had investments in certain countries, or that he has changed his position since the election.
4. It is wrong to make a mistake – There is no argument made to suggest he has made a mistake – only that he benefited from a position of power.

From a moral standpoint, if we accept the premises of Bloomberg, that Trump indeed has excluded from his travel ban certain nations where his company has assets, then the only reason to think that Trump has misappropriated influence as president would be if:

• Excluding Saudi Arabia and other countries he ignored would be a source of advantage to the United States
• Relinquishing or suffering the risk of having Trump (and other US assets seized) was a greater risk
• The US had no recourse to avert any possible loss of assets
• President Trump could take advantage of the news to make ‘trading profits’

None of these arguments are valid for the following reason:

• Restricting Arab countries would be construed as a reasonable preventive engagement in the way of terrorist threats and declining civility other countries, namely Northern Europe
• The US has ample opportunity to seize assets in the United States from those countries which Bloomberg is concerned about, knowing that a US court could freeze assets under a Trump-instigated court injunction
• The US could actually enforce a ‘threat of reprisals’ for such a loss or seizure, though that this might not be consistent with the actions of previous administrations, there is perhaps reason to think that it will be different for Trump.
• Trump is unlikely to gain from upsetting foreigners given his family interests in hotels. Hotels are readily targeted by terrorists, so he is in fact, very vulnerable.

Stepping aside from this particular policy initiative of Trump, ‘conflict of interest’ concerns is ‘silly policy’ that attempts to rectify an illegitimacy in law, and that is the democratic tradition of political discourse that functions as a legalised extortion racket. The philosophical foundations of democracy are what ought to be in question. Democracy sabotages good, rational and effective decision-making, and this is where Bloomberg has ‘ample hypocritical capital’ as a compromiser of rational or coherent debate, along with a litany of other global media organisations that fear that their privileged standing is threatened by:

• Competition from the loss of their prior privileged access to government officials
• The possibility of Trump winding back the permitted market share of media organisations. Since the 1960s we have seen an immense concentration of media influence. This has been diminished by the advances in online communications, but there is every reason to believe that the ‘media space’ will become increasingly regulated to advance the interests of media conglomerates in time, like the finance sector has been able to achieve.
• Prosperity and the prospects of people feeling less likely to follow the news if things are going well.

The same arguments can be applied to other examples of ‘conflict of interest’. The concern ought not be against politicians who receive a $2000 bottle of wine from a corporate president, who might well be expecting some form of patronage. The same concerns for disclosure are equally pathetic, whether we are talking about a bottle of wine, or a donation of $50,ooo to the politician or their political party affiliation. There is no knowing whether the payment is support for democracy, support for the party’s broad policy proscriptions, or to buy favours. Disclosure is not going to buy that confession. Only an admission would do that, and no one does that. Perversely, it would be surprising if anyone would not make such a connection, and it is equally questionable whether two people could not orchestrate arrangements to conceal their dealings behind a ruse – like a sponsored lunch. This is precisely what occurs. This is how people tragically think of other’s conduct, and its tragically how things actually occur in this political system, for which a public sanction is sought and ‘freely given’ every 3-6 years. If there was a payment; it must be for an illegitimate motive. It couldn’t possibly be because he valued the political proscriptions of the politician. But that ignores the broader context in which people act; and it is this that we must deal with: representative democracy.

The perversity of this situation arises not from the existence of a ‘conflict of interest’, but from the existence of a ‘public interest’ where really no such interest should exist. These perverse political interventions and the regulatory frameworks used to justify them, are really attempts to patch up a failing political system that benefits politicians. This is why politicians adopt these concessions to placate public distrust, but politicians never end up being prosecuted, which is unsurprising. They merely take the exit door with their tail between their legs.

A ‘conflict of interest’ can arise because a vested interest wants to recoup a loss which would not otherwise be suffered if they didn’t act in a ‘democratic’ extortion racket. i.e. A person who might feel they have a legitimate reason for immigrating to a country, could pay off a politician to get ‘special consideration’. They might only do it to expedite their application. These concerns tend to get swept aside if there is a ‘public interest’ qualification, and generally the legislation is written in such terms to permit it. But immigration itself or welfare could be construed as ‘conflict of interest’ policies, but they are never so.

Doesn’t the Democratic Party have an immense ‘conflict of interest’ with respect to:

• The provision of welfare
• The accommodation of foreign aliens
• The expansion of immigration programs, if they were deemed to be a source of political support

Of course this is the case, but it is accepted because the Republican (and other conservative parties in other countries) are in an equally compromised position, whether it’s helping business people to circumvent a specific law. This is ultimately what is wrong with the West, and there is no culture to change it. The reasons are that the media and public education have simply compromised the personal integrity of all constituents. For this reason, integrity is a rare feature in any nation. One of the most enduring fallacies of modern times was that the United States is great because of its values. This is not the case. The US grew to be the biggest, most powerful country because:

1. Until recently it lived off the legacy of its historic greatness as a ‘relatively’ individualistic, market based economy
2. The expansiveness of its population, i.e. The US borders were very open before, but that was when the US didn’t have a ridiculously generous welfare system
3. The benefit of a fully-functioning economy at a time when its Western European competitors post-WWI & WWII suffered from a war-crippled industrial complex. This was particularly the case with the escalated threat of aerial bombing in WWII.
4. The size and geographic expansiveness of the US nation is actually an immense source of parochial advantage.

The solution to the ‘conflict of interest’ concern, isn’t persecuting people for having a ‘conflict of interest’, or even suggesting that there is any such conflict, or that it must be disclosed, because the mere disclosure will not resolve in anyone’s mind whether the act was illegitimate. The solution is to:

• Make the system voluntary. Cease taxing people so that there are people who are able to profit from other people’s money. When you tax people, there ceases to be a counterparty who will act as a ‘good custodian’of said money. If a person makes an investment, they pay the cost, and carry the responsibility of resolving any poor conduct they sponsor. When a taxpayer is forced to pay tax, they lose ownership of the money, and a politician obtains an illegitimate ‘unqualified’ or ‘unaccountable’ custodianship over it. This is an important source of abuse.
• Adopt rational standards. The voter is powerless to stop said abuse in a politically-relativist system comprising a ‘2-horse’ party race. Inviting other parties will not make a difference. The standard of value in a ‘democratic’ majoritive extortion racket is coercive mob sanctions. To achieve meaningful accountability would require rational ‘intelligible’ standards as well as voluntarism.

This is of course why we need to adopt an anarchocapitalist system of ‘non-government’. Society has to be a voluntary system of authority regimes with full personal sovereignty, voluntary or discretionary sanction, and intra-jurisdictional competition. Not the ‘power sharing’ regime we have today between international, national & local governments. Even parents could be construed as a ‘power sharing’ extortion racket if you consider the refusal of governments to intervene in the lives of abusive parents. This is a conflict of interest because the politicians don’t want to suffer adverse claims or consequences of imposing upon a parent’s rights or privacy. But the travesty is bigger than that. The political system is serving as an organised crime racket, and not as a protector of people.

We might also wonder – doesn’t the media have a conflict of interest? Go further. Doesn’t everyone have a conflict of interest in the case of any advocacy? They have an ego to defend. So repudiating other’s posture as a ‘conflict of interest’ is really nothing more than a ‘red herring’ that resembles much of the ‘religious-like’ persecution of atheists, or ‘other churches’.