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’.

Are President Trump and Pope Francis partners in prosperity?

President Donald Trump has concluded a roadshow embracing the 3 major global religions. One might have expected that this roadshow wouldn’t entail the usual diplomatic placation of prior presidential meetings. In fact, Pope Francis has been conspicuously outspoken, along with all global leaders, and Trump is no exception with the Muslim leaders. They are cordial, but clearly have points of difference. In the midst of global apathy towards politicians, you can expect more outlandish expression by leaders intent upon distancing themselves from controversial leaders like Trump. Perversely, Presidents Trump and Duterte seem to be associating themselves with openly authoritarian leaders like President Putin, and of course each other. If there is anything to comfort people in times of apathy, it is authoritarianism and practical ‘results’.

There is also an overarching attempt by the media to make sense of the political discourse. The problem is that such coverage has been overtly biased against Trump. The most recent example comes from the NZ Herald and Daily Telegraph’s coverage of the Trump tour of religious centres of conflict.

Donald Trump meets Pope Francis at the Vatican. The leaders “could hardly be more different”.[i]

The media would have people believe that the pontiff and Trump disagree on many issues, including:

1. Climate change and the environment
2. Refugees and migrants
3. Capitalism
4. Engagement

But there is no evidence to suggest this is the case, as we review these issues.

Climate change and the environment

“President Trump has threatened to pull the US out of the 2015 Paris accord on reducing greenhouse global gas emissions, and in March signed an executive order dismantling environmental regulations enacted under Barack Obama”. [ii]

President Trump is not dismantling all environmental regulations. He is merely curtailing the overreach that has suspended too many projects, and diminished their profitability by imposing excessive costs on project sponsors. Trump of course recognises that hindering investment only frustrates efforts to create jobs. This issue has little to do with global warming. So on this issue there is no “stark contrast” implied.

Pope Francis has called for concerted action to halt global warming and a shift away from the use of fossil fuels. [iii]

This is clearly a point of difference for the two world leaders, and yet the science behind these hopes is controversial. It could thus be argued that Trump is reducing global warming ‘by other means’. It is true that reducing fossil fuels is not in Trump’s plans, at least not to the extent of ‘destroying the coal industry’. This much we can garner from Trump’s campaign rhetoric. It could be argued that Trump has no interest in seeing new investment in coal-fired power stations that would increase coal consumption. However, we might still glean from his rhetoric that he does – at least – want to support existing infrastructure. i.e. Ensure that existing fossil fuel plants remain in operation for their 50-year operating lives. After all, isn’t it the role of government to protect people’s property, and not to arbitrarily decimate people’s lives? Coal miners and power plant tycoons.

Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: “This President has already changed his mind on several things, so perhaps he will on this as well.[iv]

Let’s hope President Trump is more cautious in his policy settings than a religious leader who bears no responsibility for the consequences of their actions. After all, just look at the track record of the Catholic Church with its cover-up of child abuse. Is that a measure of the church’s respect for science? The question is whether the science is supported by the facts, or whether academia has done to science, what the media is doing to facts, or the church is still doing to children in emerging markets, seemingly oblivious to events in Western markets. The issue of sexual abuse by pastors in the Philippines for instance has hardly even surfaced because of the power of the Catholic Church.[v] Just more evidence that the media too has no interest in ‘exposing’ parochial interests, when those interests are very powerful.

Refugees and migrants

“The Pope has repeatedly called for compassion to be shown to refugees and migrants and is himself the product of an Italian family that migrated to Argentina”. [vi]

President Trump is unlikely to be indifferent to the plight of refugees, however he is unlikely to see the US as a custodian of the globe in the same fashion as other leaders. He will be looking for an American interest in such global engagement. The problem we have here is that religion doesn’t have a monopoly on ethical conduct, and as we can see from the conduct of the Catholic Church, there is no reason to think it has any moral legitimacy at all. It does however have to extol values that resonate with moral standards. It just doesn’t need to espouse a coherent world view because its congregation are rather morally ambivalent.

“President Trump, in contrast, attempted to ban the entry of Syrian refugees in Jan 2017, deciding to halt the issuing of visas to people from several Muslim countries, and wants to build a wall along the Mexican border”. [vii]

Trump did attempt to ban Muslims because inviting refugees would have invited the same civic threats posed by terrorists in the European Union. It is not as if the United States is the only country capable of offering asylum to Muslims. Moreover, you have to wonder why Arab states have not taken steps to welcome asylum seekers. Why is this singularly a Western concern? Why is there one standard for the United States, and no requirement for the Arab countries to entertain Muslim refugees.[viii] After all, these people have largely compatible values, and yet Saudi Arabia is able to placate the media for its ‘security concerns’.[ix] Of course the reason is that the Arab leaders control their media, and they don’t want any more fundamentalists than the West does. But is this reason for the West to serve as the battlefield for the Arab ‘enlightenment’. Clearly it can’t serve as a foundation for a cultural revolution if Western Arabs are estranged from the homeland of fundamentalism. The only solution is ‘cultural quarantining’ of Arab [indeed all] dogmatism. We should not stop at militancy because militancy can be ‘home grown’ and it raises human rights controversies that the West is not ready to deal with. Dealing ‘internally’ with Arab vs Christian disparities would only turn Western nations into centres of double standards.

Pope Francis was not actually very critical of Trump’s campaign pledge to build an impenetrable wall along the Mexican border, and his declaration that the United States should turn away Muslim immigrants and refugees. At the time, the pontiff argued:

Pope Francis: “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian”.[x]

This was not entirely a negative reproach, if you consider that the pontiff has a great deal of ‘brand goodwill’ invested in criticising Trump and supporting ‘Catholic’ Mexicans. In fact, it highlights the fact that the Pope doesn’t completely disagree with the need for walls. It is apparent that Trump was not spurning the need for engaging Mexico either, yet this was the ‘spin’ of the media. After all, it was also Trump’s policy to get Mexico to pay for the wall. That takes ‘engagement’ or negotiation.

‘The pontiff is a vocal advocate for aiding refugees, particularly those fleeing the violence in Syria, deeming it both a “moral imperative” and “Christian duty” to help’. [xi]

There is no reason to think that Trump has betrayed the Catholic moral code espoused by the pontiff, given that Trump orchestrated a bombing of Syria in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Observe the response however of the media:

[Trump has] never been one to let an insult, perceived or real, go by without a response, and he made no exception for the world’s best-known religious leader, calling Pope Francis “disgraceful” for doubting his faith. [xii]

Apparently, Trump is not allowed to criticise world leaders who criticise him, or whom the media depict as criticising him. Accountability is apparently only reserved for the US president.

The pontiff’s inauguration message to President Trump extolled the hope that the United States’ international stature would “continue to be measured above all by its concern for the poor, the outcast and those in need”. [xiii]

Is there any evidence to suggest that President Trump has not conveyed a proclivity to help the needy? On the contrary, global leaders seem to be taking every opportunity to distance themselves from the president for any reason.

In recent talks, both Pope Francis and President Trump agree on a need for Muslim leaders to do more against extremists in their own communities. But there are few other areas where their views align. [xiv]

In actual fact, the leaders agree on a great many things. The media has simply chosen to depict the pontiff’s apprehensions as ‘criticism’ when he is far more measured in his statements. Consider the following statement from the media:

“The president’s prior anti-Muslim rhetoric – including his musing that Islam “hates” the West – is the antithesis of what the pope has been preaching about a need for dialogue with Muslims”.[xv]

Saying Muslims ‘hate the West’ is not an incorrect statement, and both leaders agree on the need to engage Muslim leaders. So where is the disagreement. The pontiff is far more likely to be diplomatic because he has no interest in criticising a competing religion.

It would be incorrect to argue that local leaders in the Arab world are united in their disdain for Trump. On the contrary, the US and Trump are likely to preserve friends within the Saudi government, as well as in Jordan, UAE and Bahrain, if not other Arab countries. That is after all why Trump was able to negotiate am arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

“In Saudi Arabia, he addressed dozens of Arab leaders and urged them to fight extremists at home and isolate Iran, which he depicted as menace to the region”. [xvi]

Iran is indeed unpopular in the Arab world.

Helping the poor

Francis also differs sharply with Trump on the need to combat climate change and economic inequality. [xvii]

This is a point of disagreement, but then it’s an understandable one, and hardly exceptional given that:

1. It is highly ‘abstract science’ that does warrant skepticism. The science community is not as supportive of the ‘global warming’ hypothesis as the media would suggest.
2. Neither leaders are scientists
3. The president might be aware of intelligence that the pontiff is not.

On the issue of ‘inequality’, the pontiff is similarly ‘not an economist’. Is he unlikely to appreciate that capitalism or wealth creation actually requires ‘inequality’. It is the ‘unequal needs of people’ that culminates in a trade relationship and the prospect of mutual economic surpluses. Does the pontiff imagine that said surpluses can be achieved without inequality? No. Clearly, he is ignorant of economics.

The media then speculates that the pontiff might criticise the “Trump’s budget…[that he] would dramatically cut funding to programmes that help the poor, [as well as] the president’s agreement to sell military equipment to Saudi Arabia”. [xviii]

The media of course have little understanding of capitalism either. The media doesn’t realise that:

1. The best way to help people is not to give them unattained ‘needs’, but to create unfettered markets so that they can achieve a sense of self-worth through ‘conditional engagement’. It is the only foundation for personal self-respect.
2. The president has been active in stimulating jobs in the USA, securing trade deals, and reforming the US economy. This is the best way to help the poor. Just look at what it has done for Asia.

That said, there is a need on the part of President Trump to acknowledge that markets are not ‘unfettered’, and that there is a historic legacy of market distortion. Yet, aside from these errors of judgement and ‘speculations’, the NZ Herald, then muses that ‘experts believe it unlikely the outspoken pontiff will do anything but be welcoming during his first meeting with Trump’.[xix] In which case, the latter thesis seems to be self-refuting. The NZ Herald has posited that Trump would upset the pontiff, but then concluded that he wouldn’t do anything about it. It is such a perverse logic, given that it extols a thesis, then posits that there will be no evidence to disprove it, because the pontiff is destined to be nice to the president.

The pontiff said last week he would “never make a judgment about a person without hearing him out” and some Vatican observers suspect he will hold his tongue, at least for now”. [xx]

This is after all what reasonable people do. But the media is not reasonable. In the name of ‘accountability’ and ‘objectivity’, it asserts conspiracies that spare it the burden of responsibility for posing evidence or even coherency. This is a religion of another type – it’s called mysticism. Of course, the media isn’t immune from getting a story right. They ‘do good’ along with bad. They will happily report on ‘neutral stories’ to sell newspapers when it doesn’t hurt their interests, such as Al Jazeera reporting on abusive Catholics in the Philippines, but make no mistake – when their interests are threatened by a US president, they are scathing in their contempt.

Capitalism

The media want to posit Trump as the embodiment of capitalist tyranny, as if there is something unsavoury about Trump, whilst the Catholic Church, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Palestine are able to retain a clear conscience. This is the measure of the media, that in covering Trump, these ‘counterparts’ get legitimacy. There is an absence of perspective here, but if you consider that the media has its own agenda and interests, then you can understand the need to critique anything the media extols.

“The embodiment of bullish, free-wheeling capitalism, Donald Trump made his fortune from investing in property and other ventures around the world and wants to slash taxes for the rich”. [xxi]

Trump is keen to reduce taxes on the wealthy and to subsidise investment in the US to draw jobs back to the United States, which ultimately helps the poor in a sustainable fashion. So what might we make of the pontiff’s comments?

Pope Francis has repeatedly warned that the excesses of the global capitalist system are leaving millions of people behind, fuelling social tensions and harming the planet”.[xxii]

Again, we must remember that the pontiff is not an economist. Capitalism has ‘excesses’, but note that it is relatively rare and contextually appropriate. One such ‘excess’ is the extraordinary prices of stocks in the Dotcom bubble. Despite the crash, these prices would ultimately prove feasible, albeit premature given the similarly extraordinary valuation placed on Google and Facebook. If he is alluding to ‘corruption’ or ‘excessive profits’, he needs to know that:

1. High profits stimulate investment where jobs are being created; and that’s where the world’s poor are the most vulnerable. Yes, the ‘small trickle down’ in the West is offset by a ‘flood in Asia’.
2. It is actually misinformed liberals who are ‘inciting social tensions’ in the West, with their misplaced criticism of capitalism.
3. The planet is not in a state of crisis. The Western World remains a relatively positive and optimistic place to live despite labour market distortions.

Pope keeping an ‘open mind’

Pope Francis: “Even if one thinks differently we have to be very sincere about what each one thinks”. [xxiii]

So it appears that there are only minor points of conflict between the Pope and Trump. On the contrary, the relationship looks very positive. Perhaps the Pope could display more empathy for Trump by signalling to the media that twisting his words as a ‘criticism of Trump’ is not respectful. This is really the least that the pontiff could do to preserve good government. Where is his condemnation of the media bias, or ‘fake news’? After all, if we are to have good governance, we need Trump’s focus to be on policy; not defending himself from ‘fake news’. Now, I’ll be willing to guarantee that the pontiff is not about to criticise the media given that the ‘vindictive media’ would respond by investigating more cases of paedophilia in places like the Philippines and Russia.

Pope Francis: “I will say what I think and he will say what he thinks. There are always doors that are not closed. We need to find the doors that are at least partly open, go in, and talk about things we have in common and go forward, step by step”. [xxiv]

I see no evidence that this is not true of Trump. After all, it was Trump that took the opportunity early on in his presidency to visit the religious leaders of the world. But let’s compare the pontiff’s rhetoric with the actions of a Catholic Church. The Vatican has given ‘effective asylum’ to a high-profile archbishop in Australia who bears responsibility for paedophilia.[xxv]

References

[i], [ii], [iii], [iv] “Not Christian’: The key issues Donald Trump and Pope Francis disagree on, as they meet in Rome”, Daily Telegraph UK, website, 24^th May 2017.

[v] “Philippine Catholic church abusers rarely prosecuted”, Al Jazeera, website, 16^th Feb 2017.

[vi], [vii] “Not Christian’: The key issues Donald Trump and Pope Francis disagree on, as they meet in Rome”, Daily Telegraph UK, website, 24^th May 2017.

[viii] “No, Arab Gulf Countries Are Not Taking in Refugees” by Chaker Khazaal, Huffington Post, website, 2016.

[ix] ‘Arab monarchies turn down Syrian refugees over security threat’, DW.com, website, 2016.

[x], [xi], [xii], [xiii], [xiv], [xv], [xvi], [xvii], [xviii], [xix], [xx] “An unsmiling Pope Francis meets Donald Trump” by Julie Pace, Jonathan Lemire, NZ Herald, website, 24^th May 2017.

[xxi], [xxii], [xxiii], [xxiv] “Not Christian’: The key issues Donald Trump and Pope Francis disagree on, as they meet in Rome”, Daily Telegraph UK, website, 24^th May 2017.

[xxv] ‘Cardinal Pell testimony brings sex abuse to Vatican’s doorstep’ by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, The Guardian, website, 29^th Feb 2016; “George Pell must front child abuse inquiry again, says Bill Shorten” by Tessa Akerman, The Australia, website, 8^th Feb 2017.