I have been asked many times by many people to go into politics, which is a thought I find absolutely repulsive, and besides which, I consider our legal, political, and economic systems to be so hopelessly flawed / corrupted or broken, that I think a life in politics would be absolutely frustrating, and would likely not result in anything I intended. But for the sake of argument, if I were to do it, and if I could actually have unilateral power to do as I pleased without having to appease vested interests or get agreement from others, this article deals with what I would do.
Given the fact the systems in place are already so hopelessly broken, corrupted, or flawed, my first move would be to bring things back into some semblance of balance and harmony, and which actions would require some sophisticated work with the constitution and thus a very long process of one or more referendums. However the long term goal would be the replacement of all systems with better ones, but to do that, we need stability first.
Australia is a signatory to the declaration of human rights, and under international law, as well as the common law, I would think we have a duty to fulfil all articles of the charter of human rights, so without any delay, I would ensure that there is no homelessness, and given the fact that we already have 2-3 vacant houses per homeless person, this should not be even remotely difficult. This may very well require changes to all sorts of legislation which are too numerous to go into in great depth, but ultimately it comes down to a simple principle: so long as a single person remains homeless, there should be no vacant houses exempted from use to house those people.
Another great issue with housing is housing density, in which so many people are disconnected from nature, with no access to soil or any kind of personal garden, and while I appreciate that some have a total lack of interest in such things, there are many others whom would prefer to have a yard of their own, even if for only a small veggie patch and a few fruit trees, or somewhere for their children to play which is safe and secure. Thus a longer term strategy which I would get a separate team to begin working on, is how to utilise best those dwellings already constructed, while gradually changing housing density to provide what people actually want.
While the long term goals post-capitalism are very different, in the short to medium term, I think it is vastly too expensive to buy land, and this has excluded many people from the housing market. In a following section on minimum wage, we can deal with part of that affordability question, but we also need to deal with the notion of foreign ownership.
Until the entire world is somehow united in a better system of governance of resources, it remains a competitive world, and I do not see any benefit in foreign ownership, when any usage they may require can so easily be replaced with leases. So the short term goal would be to buy back all foreign owned land, or in some cases perhaps even just taking it back, particularly where the land and its ecology has been polluted or destroyed, and the profits from that exploitation have mostly gone overseas. I think in such cases as this, it is not Australia’s obligation to buy back land of reduced value, and which is going to require extraordinary resource expenditure to fix what has been done to it. We should also disallow any continuance of such practices, and from which there is so little economic benefit.
Similarly with food, we have an enormous amount of agricultural production, though a great deal of it is wasted for all sorts of reasons, and given the burden on the health system when people are forced by economic circumstances to, or do so due to lack of education, eat unhealthy foods, I would place immediate limitations on the production of junk foods, so that healthier foods become more widely available and cheaper.
Further to this end, I would ensure education programmes are conducted on the ethical and health issues associated with eating animal flesh, so that more and more people might reduce their consumption, and work towards other measures to reduce it further. This is also a needed measure in the respect that the production of meat is extremely inefficient in terms of resource usage, and an extremely inefficient way to provide nutrition. I will deal with the longer term objectives later, as this involves a more complex strategy balancing people’s freedom and liberty, versus animal rights for other sentient species.
The result of these measures is to ensure that with food and housing, homelessness and malnutrition are eliminated, which thus reduces the social burdens of healthcare, along with the commission of crimes by desperate people. The other side benefits here include that when people are no longer chasing their own tails just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, they can now focus on what they want to do with their lives, and this will have long term positive economic and social benefits, so long as this system of government exists.
It has been shown time and time again, that the western chemical intensive and machine intensive farming practices tend to destroy the soil biome, which in turn reduces nutritional density in plant based foods, and meanwhile, various natural farming practices such as permaculture based systems and others such as detailed in the book “The One Straw Revolution” by Masanobu Fukuoka, have demonstrated the ability to produce equal or greater crop yields, while sustainably maintaining or improving the soil biome and mineralogy, which means more nutrient dense and healthy foods.
These better farming practices are harder to do on large scales, and so the goal would be to set up some kind of framework, tied to education, to enable larger farms to be broken down into smaller ones, and available for purchase by individuals and families whom are interested in pursuing a farming life.
Very large farms – particularly those growing unsuitable crops such as cotton – and which have destroyed the Murray Darling River system, would be immediately halted, with all water dams and redirection preventing ecological flows removed. In the case where ecological and social harm, including that done to indigenous communities, has been particularly agregious, charges might be pursued against the operators.
All logging operations in state forests and national parks would stop immediately, with a consitutional referendum to have them all converted to national parks under protection from further abuse. Meanwhile land further out in central Australia would be converted from desert to forests specifically for logging, but where environmental protections still limit the harm done to those forming ecosystems, and where the waste of tree based paper would be discontinued forever, by instead planting hemp and bamboo crops for such things as toilet paper, and given that such operations could provide tax relief for Australians, they would be brought under public ownership and control.
Similarly to logging, the mining industry has done immense damage, very little of which has it taken adequate ( if any ) responsibiltiy without being pressured, and since these resources can only be dug up and sold once, it makes no sense to allow the vast majority of profits from such operations to go oversease or into private hands, so again they would be nationalised, which should in turn ensure far better ecological controls, limitations on distruption and damage to communities, with better wages for the true workers involved, and tax relief for all other Australians whom share in our common wealth, thus also allowing for other measures herein this article to be paid for, without excessive taxes on anyone ( though still the proportions paid would be higher on the ultra wealthy and corporations ).
With the state of the environment, not only do we need to improve protections for what ecosystems and species that remain, we also need to help nature in its recovery, and this will involve a whole range of short and long term measures.
So far as the rural fire services are concerned, I would give them whatever funding they need, including funding to ensure that everyone is paid for their efforts, with no requirement for people to contribute as volunteers, particularly given the risks and effort of their work.
Both parks and fire services would act in coordination with traditional indigenous land owners, to ensure best practices and sensitivity for environmental concerns, however their job has been much harder by much shortened windows of opportunity for safe hazard reduction burning operations, so other measures would also be introduced, using some very low tech ways of bringing more water to drier regions, and thus helping recreate the forests which reduce temperatures, keep more water in the soil, and thus are less likely to become extreme bushfire zones.
Education programmes and various protection rules would be put in place to protect the environment from the types of users who enjoy National Parks, but have a tendency to trash them, firstly by mandating that no disposable packaging or products would be allowed for sale within park boundaries, with the exception of those things which are fully biodegradable and completely non-toxic, while also posing no threat of any other kind to any native species inhabiting the parks.
Marine parks would also be expanded, with extremely large fishing vessels excluded from any operation in those areas ( local fishermen and small fishing operations only ).
Park rangers, indigenous experts, plus university students and staff, who may study such fields as botany, biology, bush tucker, ecology, wilderness survival, and zooology, would be given incomes for their work within park ecosystems, and employed for various things such as guided nature tours.
Refurbishment of park facilities such as composting toilet systems, with better ventilation and comfort for users, would also find new funding. The goal here is to get more people out enjoying and connecting with nature, while also taking more personal responsibility for the way in which they treat those environments. Park rangers, with a much higher level of indigenous rangers, would be given the power to impose temporary and permanent bans on those found to be repeatedly breaking the rules designed to protect these ecosystems from over exploitation and abuse.
There are many things to address in this area, and I would endeavour to ensure that no representative of indigenous issues, would ever be anyone other than an indigenous person, as I do not think it is appropriate to expect indigenous people to fight for their rights and argue their claims through a non-indigenous spokesperson, and it should be up to them who they choose as such representatives, and whether ( if and when ) they ever hire expertise from outside their own community. No one has the right to tell them how to conduct themselves, given this land was taken from them illegally by way of invasion, genocide, and breaches of international law.
It is however still a question to be asked with respect to the rights of those born here, but of non-indigenous origin, where we were not party to those past events, and yet have benefited from them. My own position being that I do not feel my life ever could be worthy of justifying a genocide, and given the chance to turn back time and bring all those murdered people back to life, I would happily give up my own life and existence if somehow that made it possible.
The road to reconciliation will require a new form of social engagement on all things, and hence the longer term vision is about combining the best aspects of both indigenous and other cultures, to bring about a golden age of happiness, health, well-being, and prosperity for all, in a truly ecologically and socially friendly and sustainable civilisation, and which is worthy of being seen as a beacon and guiding light for other nations to follow and immitate.
Ultimately, there is a great deal of reparations that must be made to atone for past wrong doing, and to level the playing field, so that all may prosper, including all native species of flora and fauna.
Indigenous People & Land Rights:
I would immediately seek discussion with all indigenous people and groups, to find out not only what is wrong with the Native Title system, so they can lay claim faster to their traditional lands, but also in the pursuit of a treaty, such that perhaps some kind of amalgamation of indigenous and other peoples can become part of something new and different, versus both the current status quo, and also versus how things were before colonisation and invasion, but which is contgruent with the wishes of the original owners of this land.
It would be my hope that indigenous people and groups would actually like my vision for the future, regarding the systems of quantification of ecological and social justice and sustainability ( which I haven’t yet written about in any great detail on this particular site as of this date August 2021 ). I would endeavour to arrange a short to medium term treaty, wherein they have serious legal and political rights as the traditional owners, and where they are engaged in the transition to something new over the medium to long term.
Financial Sector and Banking:
All banks would be returned to state ownership, and be re-engineered for the public good. Banks will eventually be gone entirely, as we will be working towards a completely different economic paradigm, which is not based on property, currency, or trade, but instead based on the recognition that:
- if a resource is abundant ( supply greater than demand ), then there is no reason everyone shouldn’t just have as much as they need, so long as our means of harvest, processing, manufacture, maintenance, operation, and recycling, do not themselves cause excessive ecological or social harm;
- if a resource is scarce ( demand greater than supply ), then we only need to understand where the best allocation of these resources happens to be, and which is not determined by anyone’s opinion, but instead determined by the quantification of ecological and social justice and sustainability, with respect to the beneficial and deleterious consequences of such resource allocation.
As the specifics of this new paradigm is the subject of my 30 year obsession, it will take a very large series of books to explain it all in great detail, but ultimately what it means ( in simple terms ) is this:
- your actions can be measured and quantified in terms of their ecological and social consequences, and much of this information gathering can be automated;
- this information can be stored in a very specialised form of blockchain architecture which I have designed, such that the information can be viewed in both public, private, and anonymous contexts ( depending on privacy issues );
- if all you want to do is spend your life going to the beach, and you do not want to do anything else, but you are happy to live off only those things that are in abundant supply, this is perfectly ok, and you have every right to do so – however the more people who do so, the more things become scarce, and thus a feedback loop exists, where at some point it is likely you will find the need to contribute to society in some way, in order to access scarce resources that you find a need for, but similarly as more people contribute, less things become scarce, and so the need to contribute also lowers by way of the same feedback mechanism – in other words: this is a self rectifying system;
- if you produce goods or services, whether they be abundant or scarce, you are responsible for the consequences ( in both ecological and social terms ) of the manner in which you produce them, and so you will be endeavouring at all times to improve those methods, such as to minimise deleterious and maximise beneficial ecological and social consequences;
- since it doesn’t cost anything to hire anyone, there will be those who choose to specialise in the improvement of methods of design, manufacture, and so forth, and as they are essentially free to hire, you will be able to engage such people in helping improve your methods, and in doing so you both benefit by the changes this generates in each of your statistics within the system;
- as a producer, you are also partly responsible for where you distribute such goods ( in terms again of the consequences of that distribution ), and again there might be specialists who understand how to weigh up the data avaiable for such assessment, and while you are free to make your own decisions, only you can be responsible for your part in those decisions, so you will naturally tend to provide scarce resources to those with the best history of causing minimal harm, and creating maximum benefit per unit of resource usage.
There is a great deal more to this, but I just mention it here so that you understand that with respect to finances and banking, it is all just a transition to a far better economic paradigm, in which we can still have technology, but we do not waste anywhere near as much of what we have, and thus there is plenty for all, without the need for authoritarian government, and yet we can also still organise in groups and across wide areas to engage in bigger issues across our country and even internationally.
So long as banking, finance, and capitalism exists anywhere in the rest of the world that we wish to trade with, some measure of state owned banking will remain for such purposes, but ultimately the goal is to assist other countries in making the transition too.
As those of you familiar with my work will already know, I am an anti-capitalist, however I do acknowledge that while this system is in place, and entrenched, with such a long history and momentum, it is impossible to change it overnight. However, change it we must, as it is one of the greatest causes of human suffering and the suffering of other species, along with its extremely deleterious ecological consequences. But before all that can happen, we need to reduce suffering, and so within the systems that exist, we need to provide relief.
I would create an algorithm which data mines the internet to create a per person, per location, real time cost of living, which is essentially a calculation of the fulfilment of all articles of the charter of human rights for that person. A referendum would then be held to include this algorithm in the constitution as the minimum wage, such that no political game playing in the future could change it, unless someone was to present an improvement to the algorithm, and thus modify it to even greater benefit.
With this minimum wage set, anyone without a job would receive this payment from the government as a social safety net, paying for it with taxes on the ultra-wealthy and corporations, whom disproportionately benefit from society in general, and from a stable society in which they can actually do business, plus further revenue gained by the renationalisation of key industries ( as previously mentioned ).
With this safety net in place, people would not be struggling to survive, and thus employers would need to either pay additional money to bring total wages over this rate, or find people who love the work on offer, or offer some kind of additional benefit, in order to coax people into the employment arena. This would further stimulate innovation, and also give a massive boost to the arts industry, where artists could really focus on their creations, and with the same again occuring for inventors and other innovators.
I have no issue with someone being wealthy so long as they actually deserve it, but a great many with immense wealth either contribute nothing, or what they do contribute can often be minimal and even quite harmful to society. But without wanting to create a specific and arbitrary cap on wages, I thought of a better solution.
Similar to the minimum wage algorithm, I would create a maximum wage algorithm, in which the maximum wage was determined by proportion to total business, and proportion to the minimum, median, and mean wages of everyone else in the business. The result of which is that if the guy ( or girl ) at the top wants a pay rise, the only way they can do it is by making the business more profitable AND increasing first the wages of everyone else. This would ensure an end to the disproportionate rewards for those at the top, and which are so often garnered by robbing clients, customers, contractors, and employees alike, in addition to their pillaging of natural resources.
With this algorithm once again protected by referendum inclusion into the constitution, it would prevent future political parties from changing it without good cause.
The CSIRO would receive all its funding previously cut over past years and decades, with a focus on science for the good of all ( including other species ) and the planet as a whole. All efforts will be geared towards creation of a sustainable society, with technology only used in ways that do not cause harm to the environment faster than it can recover and replenish itself.
The only possible exception to this being their collaboration with state owned military development, which is all exclusively for defence of the sovereignty of nations as they exist, and the defence of human rights, but never to be involved in any kind of invasion. All of which is to simply allow our own country and others to peacefully pursue our interests through international diplomacy, and to eventually transition to a better world for all, where the only reasons we would keep any military types of science, would be purely for the possibility of some sociopathic dickhead fucking up all our efforts for peace and harmony at some point in the future, or the remote possibility of some kind of aggresive alien invasion ( if such exists ).
As the flow of information is key to economic empowerment and education, the NBN would be completed according to an even better plan than the original, and run for free for both individuals and businesses alike, with the exception of foreign owned businesses which would have to pay for the services.
Australia’s current NBN is woeful, and the aim would be to have a system comparable to that of Japan, which is millions of times faster than ours.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation ( The ABC, aka “Aunty” ):
The ABC would be returned to her former glory with improvements, being given a charter to pursue an egalitarian, humanitarian, anti-war, anti-corruption agenda, and anyone not inline with this would be sacked. All past funding cuts would be returned to the ABC, and their independence assured through a range of changes, also constitutionally protected.
One instruction I would also give them would be to look through all their past broadcasts, and to make episodes of a show perhaps entitled “correcting the record”, where any deceptive, misleading, or plainly false propaganda had been broadcast. This would include retraction of lies that justified things like the so-called “war on terror”, including the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and so forth. Australians need to know how they have been deceived in the past, and the truth needs to be exposed.
Given the past crimes of the mainstream media under the agenda of media barons like Murdoch, I would declare him persona non-grata, and award his media empire to its employees as cooperative business entities, and return the media landscape to a distributed system with real locally generated and owned content, whereby all staff have a say as part owners, and the worst of the worst people in the industry can be removed by their co-workers, whom are also able to apply via the legal system, to get a ruling which removes such people from their positions, if they so choose to continue using the media as a vehicle for their own bigotry and the fraud of their advertising sponsors.
No marketing hype or other euphemisms for deception, misinformation, or anything else that is essentially misleading or some type of fraud would be allowed on air, and anyone caught committing such offences who could not justify a factually correct argument for their message, would be charged under the present legal framework. Either you’re telling the truth, or it’s fiction of some kind, and you must be clear to the audience which it is that you’re doing.
I would set a top priority for the release of Julian Assange, along with the criminal prosecution of those whom have viligied, defamed, persecuted and tortured him. Julian would be granted some pretty extreme compensation for his suffering, and given a heroes return celebration, with perhaps a day named in his honour to be celebrated as a national holiday every year. Assuming he would want such a thing of course, but I certainly think he is very worthy of it.
On which subject of rewarding true heroes, I would go out of my way to see the name Macquarie stripped from many institutions and other places, along with any other name of those guilty of past crimes, particularly against indigenous people.
As we begin the transition away from a consumer culture, but aiming to retain a high tech culture in harmony with a nature based culture, consumer goods would be regulated both in terms of imports and domestic manufacturing, so that the onus of responsibility was placed on manufacturers, to show technical ( not economic ) cause for the use of any and all non-biodegradable and/or toxic materials. In other words: manufacturers would need to demonstrate that a raw or processed material used in the manufacture or import of products, actually had a technical reason for why it is the only viable material to use versus biodegradable and non-toxic option.
Either way, regardless of the material used, manufacturers would be required to demonstrate a lifetime management plan for the recapture, recycling, and eventual return to Earth of all materials, such that:
- those materials not recaptured and recycled, cannot build up in the environment faster than they break down;
- those materials not recaptured and recycled, cannot cause ecological harm faster than nature’s ability to recover.
In addition to the above rules, all primary industries must show that their methods of harvesting raw materials, does not displace other species, or cause damage, in ways that do so faster than nature’s ability to recover.
At the other end of the process, where goods are marketed and sold to end consumers under the status quo of capitalism ( and until that status quo is replaced ), no one will be allowed to manufacture things designed to break which should otherwise be durable goods, nor introduce unnecessary redundancy or inbuilt obsolescence, as a means to generate greater profits, nor to market things excessively and unethically in order to manufacture need that would not otherwise exist.
As the other measures herein detail, with a better minimum wage, no one would feel the need to do so anyway, as everyone will be reasonably comfortable, and no one will be living in poverty or homelessness.
The global military is a massive problem in terms of destruction pollution waste and the consumption of resources, not to mention the extreme and inhuman suffering it causes, usually also because of some fraudulent narrative to excuse the invasion of another country. For this reason, the Australian Military would be no longer engaged in any invasions no matter the excuse, unless at the request of the government of that land to defend them from an invading force, and this would not include frauds acting as governments with the support of some kind of USA backed initiative fraudulently claiming it is about democracy, when in reality it is about putting a puppet in place who is friendly with Washington.
A new leadership structure for the military would be pursued, which spreads power across many individuals as a means to prevent a single point of failure in terms of corrupting influences, and I would give them instructions to prevent Australia ever returning to anything remotely resembling fascism or bigotry of any kind.
Military research and manufacturing would be put back in state hands, in order to remove the “killing for profit motive” from the equation, and the CSIRO would work with the Australian military to defend the country from invaders, and to be self sufficient in technology where possible.
Australia would make a statement supporting Palestine and Palestinians while denoucing entirely the state of Israel, which unlike Australia has no hope of ever becoming a peaceful nation with the Palestinians, whom are the indigenous people of the area, and whom have undergone insane extremes of apartheid, assassinations, bigotry, exploitation, fascism, genocide, kidnapping, imprisonment, slavery, torture, and land theft. I would state openly that Israel’s savage and reckless attitude both towards Palestinians and its other neighbouring Arab states, is just cause for it to be considered a rogue terrorist state, with no right to exist, and the land should be returned to Palestine and Palestinians, with only the Palestinians having any say at all about which Israelis if any are allowed to stay.
Australia would also step away from any support of US or UK or other western aggression or exploitation, against any African, Asian, or Arabic states or their people, with further disavowing any possibility of any future involvement in any NATO operations, with a public declaration that we recognise that the only purpose of NATO has been to subjugate Europe and use it as cannon fodder against Russia, China, and the Middle East.
Given the success of both Russia and China in raising the standards of living in their countries, I would aim to have far better relations with these countries, and to debunk quite publicly some of the propaganda aimed at them, much of which is baseless, and where any valid claims exist, I would never allow such things to be taken out of context with respect to the fact that they have often only done such things under the duress of western pressure. I would also aim to publicly debunk many historical myths about the former soviet union, and again putting them in their proper context, particularly with respect to the fact that it was really Russia and China who saved us from a world ruled by the Nazis, and not the USA at all ( whom were actually materially aiding them, in order to get the Germans to weaken Russia and China ).
With all that said, I would nonetheless also aim to look at all claims of human rights abuses both domestically and abroad, to seek ways in which Australia can show how to solve these issues permanently and prevent any possibility of recurrence, much of which I think will come out of the transition to completely new systems of justice economics and politics.
I would aim to create programmes for Australian students and international students to be able to travel and study freely across many nations, with international students also coming to Australia, and engaging in education here for free. While capacity for this may at first be limited by existing infrastructure, and the relative population sizes of Australia versus other nations, I would aim to build this over time, so that we could take as many students as there was demand for from other countries, or as close to it as possible, with universities shifting towards 24/7 operations, becoming like little towns and cities in their own right.
The education system is going to require a much longer term strategy to fix the mess it is in, but at least at first we can get rid of some of the major problems, most notably is the domination of religious based schooling, and which consumes vast and disproportionate funding from the federal government, and the second major issue being the move towards privatisation of so much of the education system, returning it to a public service, which is free for all, and free for life.
What is needed for the long term is a complete review of education materials, to remove any propaganda and misinformation, as this is the starting point for children to understand their world, and it should be considered abhorrent to brainwash them in any way, especially where your only excuse for doing so is to validate your own agenda.
This process is going to require bringing back study of philosophy ( argument, reasoning, logic, evidence, axioms, and so forth ), so that students are given critical thinking skills, and encouraged to question everything. Pattern recognition, and understanding of the principles of critical thought and scientific principles – such as the notion that “correlation is not causation” – will ensure a younger generation that is not so easily fooled. This should further be studied alongside a critical view of history, and the truth about colonialism, imperialism, and the various invasions leading to genocides, slavery, and the theft of land and resources, along with destruction of entire cultures. This of course includes a critique of Australia’s own history, and the lies that enabled it ( eg: “terra nullius” ).
I would also ensure that every child completing high school, should have an extremely good understanding of health and nutrition, as it always astounds me that so many people do not really understand the very body they spend their life inside.
Further to all of this, and much like housing, agriculture and other areas of society, I would get the private enterprise links either completely out, or at arms length – in part because I think children need to be allowed to enjoy their childhood without undue pressures, and partly because of the corrupting influence that occurs when money gets into this field, which is not to say there can be no connection, but that connection needs to be limited and regulated.
One other thing I would start doing, though eventually this would no longer be needed in the longer term, is to put away money for every child born in Australia, so that when they turn 18, assuming they finish high school, they would be given something in the order of $10,000 to $20,0000 each, along with the instructions:
“Fuck off. Go play, go travel, explore, experiment, whatever you want to do, but you cannot go to university for the next two years. What we want is for you to go experience life outside your family and home, and to get a real idea of who you want to be and what you want to do. If you happen to figure it out before the two years is up, you can certainly apply, but we would advise you not to. Then, when you are ready, you will have unlimited access to education for the remainder of your days, and complete control of your education, with all the support to do what you want to do, where you want to do it, and how you want to do it”.
The degree programme structures of tertiary institutions would be changed, so that people can combine subjects from different faculties, different universities, and technical / trades / TAFE colleges, in whatever way they please. So long as you fulfil the pre-requisites for any subject, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be able to apply for that subject, regardless of anyone’s opinion about what is considered valuable by other people and their interests.
Universities would be given funding to build enough accommodation such that every single student, whether they normally live on campus or not, at least has a private bed and study room, so they have somewhere to go that is quiet and their own, to focus on whatever they want, or to rest when they need to, without the need to leave campus.
Universities would be given additional funding to ensure they have redundancy in staff, sufficient access to elocution and vocal coaches, along with learning how to teach, so that students are not expected to have teachers that can barely speak the language. If staff are hired due to expertise and knowledge, but they are not considered very good as teachers, and no training can fix this, they will be assigned to research and the assistance of post grad students. No undergrad student should have to struggle to understand what is being said, nor put up with unsophisticated explanations of complex subjects.
Following all that, universities would also be given whatever funding is required to bring back faculties departments and subjects which were cut due to funding cuts, so that every university covers all topics and areas of interest, including having their arts communities, especially the music departments, because the university itself has no soul without art.
All of the above or similar would be true as well for the TAFE and technical colleges, with serious links to the universities created, so that we do not end up with professionals in areas of design or engineering, who do not understand why their designs are crap, hard to build, or difficult to operate maintain and use.
On the subject of grading, I would change the manner of the grading system, so that students are always given any amount of time they want to complete any exam, but the mark they get shows both the time taken and the result, and all exams would be open book. This would mean that, for such areas of endeavour as maths, science and engineering, we can see far more granular detail of how well people understand the principles, and how quickly they can apply them, because some employers for example may very well be quite happy with someone taking longer, so long as their rate of error is low or zero, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsover to cut the time short so that we do not even know whether a student is capable of a perfect result, simply because they ran out of time. Anyone who can do it faster and still get a perfect result, will still have an advantage, but at least there is no unfair disadvantage to those capable of getting a perfect result, but who need more time to do it.
The reason for the exams being open book ( as explained above ), is because with memorisation you can do it faster for sure, and if the time is recorded along with your result, then someone who has perfect recall will still have a better result, but memory often comes with time, so what is important, particularly in maths, sciences, and engineering, is not whether you memorise things, but whether you know how to look them up, and apply the concepts correctly. Memorisation will come with time.
All students ( past and present ) should be able to repeat any exam as many times as they want, if they think they have improved and can get a better result. If people are thus allowed to repeat exams many times, the other data we will be able to collect is their rate of improvement, and this is again advantageous for all concerned.
With solid links between primary, secondary, and tertiary education, we will get a far more intelligent, reasonable, and rational society. This has no downside, no matter what it costs.
As both my parents and one uncle were doctors, most of their friends and associates also being doctors, nurses, specialists, surgeons, and other healthcare professionals, I am well aware of the problems that have increasingly corrupted and plagued the healthcare profession and associated industry. So there is a lot of work to do here.
My first steps would be to get an independent group, working directly with myself, to assess the merits of all pharmaceuticals, and to determine which will be allowed into the country at all, and which I can assure you will have nothing whatsoever to do with the FDA ( who have proven themselves time and time again, to be completely corrupt ).
I would ensure that doctors and nurses had a great deal more redundancy in their staffing, so they are not under such extreme pressure all the time, and so they are fairly paid, and so they do not need to take what amounts to bribes from pharmaceutical companies in order to make a good living.
A review of court cases both domestically and internationally, whether successful or not, would see certain companies banned from operation in Australia.
For those pharmaceuticals considered to be genuinely useful, such as painkillers, but unlikely to include vaccination of any kind for anyone but the elderly and infirm – and even then, only where we are absolutely 100% sure the vaccine itself presents no risk to the patient – would be placed into an open source database so that anyone can produce them, and rewards would be offered for new pharmaceutical recipies and methods, or improvements to existing ones, such that any pharmaceuticals used, would always be the best possible version, and at the cheapest production price, as no one’s health should ever be subjected to anyone else’s profit seeking.
All alternative, complementary, holistic, natural, and preventative healthcare and medicine practices, policies, procedures, and products, would be assessed, and we would gradually shift the system away from being dominated by pharmaceuticals, to being a more natural and preventative approach.
The only places where I can really see a future for phamaceuticals, is where extreme situations occur, but given the industry’s propensity to lie and commit fraud, we would certainly never be seeking their input as to what is considered such an extremity.
As my father said to me many years ago: “there’s more money in perpetual treatment than cure or prevention”, and this was why he did not trust that industry, so we need to shift away from it, only using it where absolutely necessary. However by fixing other issues such as pollution and nutrition, along with social problems like homelessness, a huge proportion of health issues will simply disappear.
Since a great deal of crime is so circumstantial, being caused by desperation and other factors, over time it should be possible to reduce crime to a bare minimum by simply handling those other causational issues, but for those crimes that occur while this is being done, or which continue afterwards, we still need a far better approach than the one we have. Relevant to this is also the legislative and legal system review which I will discuss in the next section.
Firstly, I would release all indigenous people in custody, every single last one, and I would seek advice from the people of indigenous communities as to whether they would like those people to return to them, or whether they need further assistance in those cases where the released persons do indeed have some kind of psychosocial dysfunction, and in which cases, I would then take the approach already taken by other nations like Denmark and Cuba, where certain criminal types, particularly those convicted of violent crimes, were given a property where they can live in their own community, growing their own food, receiving education, counselling, and various other forms of therapy.
A similar thing would be done to assess anyone else in gaol for non-violent crime, to determine whether there really is any valid reason to be imposing such a harsh punishment, or whether infact their so-called “misdeeds” should really have been considered a crime in the first place. This is a longer discussion, so I will leave further elaboration for a later section of this article.
In the case of some more kind of extreme psychosis or sociopathy, where there is no chance of reform, I would have such people ( whether indigenous or otherwise ) taken to a secure hospital like facility, where they can be interviewed and studied to determine the causation of such psychological issues, partly for the purpose of future prevention, so that we can remove the causation and save others from a similar fate, and partly to be absolutely sure what to do with them.
Being against the idea of a penal system, and I do not see the point of punishment, I think we will get vastly better results, and has been shown already in other countries and cultures where such approaches are taken, but in the case where a person is indeed so psychologically deranged in some way that they cannot be reformed, I would put three options on the table – both of which come after all study of their conditions is completed:
- where the person in question is coherent enough to make the choice, and they do not like living in their condition, voluntary euthenasia would be an option, in order to give them a peaceful and dignified death;
- where the person was past any such choice, considered extremely dangerous, and no further value could be gained by any additional study of their condition, or where it would be considered cruel to them, or too risky to their carers for us to keep them alive, they would also be painlessly euthanised;
- where the person was not too dangerous to keep alive, and did not want to die, they would be taken from this facility back to a prison like facility, but vastly different in the respect that it would not be a punitive environment beyond the isolation and security required to keep everyone safe from harm.
In the case where any private enterprise has been involved in the incarceration of individuals, including refugees and asylum seekers, not only would those people be released, but there would also be criminal investigations and proceedings taken against the operators, as well as potentially against some of the staff. This is partly due to our obligations under international law with respect to the treaties on the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, as well as the declaration of human rights.
The truth of this fraud would be immediately revealed in a range of documentary broadcasts on all media, with the perpetrators named, and the real science behind health and disease revealed, so that people understood how they have been duped.
This would be combined with criminal investigation and pursuit of the perpetrators, along with ongoing re-education, to create a population who better understand their bodies, their ecosystem, and how to stay healthy.
Following all the things done to stabilise society and remove or at least minimise immediate issues,
Legal System & Legislative Review:
If you have a read of my other article here ( the legal fraud ), what you will see is that there is a certain logic required for our legal system to be functional and without dysfunction, and which principles have not been adhered to entirely for quite some time. So it would be my goal as quickly as possible to set up a review, but also to inform the judges of our state and federal courts as to how they are to proceed from this day forward while that review is underway, and where any judge did not agree with these fundamental principles, they would be considered corrupt and removed from their position, with a very stringent process put in place to find a successor.
So far as the instructions I would give to those judges, it would basically go like this:
- all law is social contract, and therefore, with the exception of Tort law and criminal law, must abide strictly by the principles of contract law, such that no one can ever be manipulated or coerced into any contract or agreement against their will;
- the exception given to Tort, being related to crimes, is where the person in question would cause harm, and not agree to the social contract not to cause such harm, despite it being a hypocritical position to take, and thus given to prevent abuse of contract law;
- “breaking the law” in terms of all legislation, is not to be considered a crime unless there is Tort, or at the very least reckless endangerment, or negligence with respect to our common duty of care for others in society – thus all other matters being considered civil disputes under contract law;
- Natural Law is to be dissociated from religious beliefs, and put solely into the hands of logic and the fundamental laws of nature, such that all arguments and reasoning are subject to the laws of nature, and what can actually be proven “beyond shadow of doubt”.
With this in place, it would no longer be possible for abuses of power to occur so far as the courts are concerned, and additional funding to legal aid would allow even the poorest person to hire the best lawyers in the business, which in turn would allow legal firms to pursue ethical clients and remain quite profitable.
Meanwhile, with respect to the legal and legislative review, I would set up a team to go through every single aspect of our consitution, and all legislation, to look for errors where the legilsation enacted might be invalid according to these more fundamental principles, or redundant, or in some other way flawed. This review would in each case assess whether the piece of legislation has any valid merit or need whatsoever, and where it does, improvements would be made in order to ensure congruence with the fundamental principles that are supposed to govern the legal system.
Only these revised acts of legislation would then be reintroduced, and as they come througth, the judges would then be able to include such articles in their considerations.
Another thing I would do at this point, would be to include in the Australian secondary schooling system, a comprehensive subject on the law and legal rights, so that every single Australian understood the system, and how to both defend their own rights, as well as defending the legal system itself from a future repeat of the corruption it has been subjected to.
Political Changes to Direct Democracy:
One of the biggest flaws in democracy is the notion of representative democracy, where you do not really have a say in anything, unless there is a referendum. The problem with representative democracy being that, in order to truly be represented, you would need to find a candidate in your area whom is significantly congruent with your position, and part of a political party or alliance of parties which was also congruent, and you would need everyone in your own electorate as well as many others, such that your representative and his or her party then won enough seats from almost identically minded people, that they could win a majority, and your position would actually be represented – but this is of course impossible.
The fix for this comes through direct democracy, which is still flawed in many ways, but not as flawed as representative democracy, and hence this is a short to medium term temporary step, which would be later replaced by a far better system ( anarchic in nature ).
After speaking with Adam Jacoby from Swinburne University, I think he really has the best idea I have heard in this area, where you can either vote directly yourself, or assign someone else to vote on your behalf on an ad hoc basis ( so you can change who this person is from time to time ), but the votes are measured proportionally to your understanding of the issues, and so with all information made available to everyone, for your vote to be weighted well, you must demonstrate an understanding of the issues.
If I understood Adam correctly, this weighting isn’t biased by any one or another position within the gamut of perspectives on any issue, but instead is used to demonstrate your understanding of all sides of the issue – afterall, how can you truly claim to disagree with another person’s position, if you cannot even demonstrate that you understand what it is.
There are likely many improvements that could be made to such a new system, and as I said, this is just a stepping stone in the transition to completely different systems again, but it is a vast improvement on what we have now, and it removes the party politics from the equation. For those improvements I would look to other proponents of similar systems, such as the people who started the Flux Party, which is another direct democracy proposal, and combine all the best aspects of all systems, also in a manner which allows ongoing evolution, until a better system is ready to take over.
If I were essentially a person with the ability to act unilaterally as a kind of benevolent dictator during all these transitions, I would be happy for such systems to take a lot of work off my shoulders, but I would also offer myself as a kind of tie breaker / adjudicator for any important issues, so that no mistakes are made. This is particularly important during times of transition, where people’s legacy of brainwashing and indoctrination into various ideological agendas is likely to still be in play, and I would want to ensure I had the power of veto to prevent such forces finding ways to usurp the change.
3 Branches of Government:
Since the Governor General as representative of the Queen, and as executive branch of the government, has in the past committed the great misdeed of getting rid of the single best Prime Minister we ever had in Gough Whitlam, I would aim to set up an indigenous group along with other people whom I trust to act as an interim executive to the 3 branches of government, with myself acting in the legislative branch, and likely new faces in the judicial branch ( the courts ), we would essentially become a republic, and if this requires a referendum, then so be it.
With Mr Murdoch out of the way, and similar bigots and fascists in the current media empires also gone, with the media now distributed to localised stations, all running as worker cooperatives, and doing collaborative work where necessary for bigger than local issues, I don’t think we would find it as hard as you might imagine to get such a referendum across the line, as there would now be far more people actually thinking for themselves instead of just being told what to think by a media baron and his stooges. All media outlets could be paid by the electoral commission to give equal time to all candidates in every local state and federal election, until the systems of direct democracy are in place, and at which time they will then broadcast information pertaining to the issues people can vote on, or perhaps some media outlets would choose to specialise in such broadcasts, while others focus on entertainment.
With short term issues handled, and short to medium term repairs made, we can now focus on the long term transition to completely different systems, and these systems, as per my work on the quantification of ecological and social justice and sustainability, will all be centred around the concepts of non-species-biased, non-property/trade/currency-based, and non-hierarchical ( anarchic ) justice economics and politics.
In other words:
- we achieve justice without law or enforcement by authoritarian means;
- we achieve economics without the need for the rampant and reckless exploitation of resources;
- we achieve political aims from the local and state to national and internation, without the need for an authoritarian government of representatives;
– and in all cases, everything is done from a non-species-biased perspective, to give a real voice to the needs of all living things, proportionally to their functional expression and role within the ecosystems that sustain us.
This transition will take a long time, but it does not require a sudden change of heart in everyone, nor does it require everyone to understand or believe in it, as all it really requires is for them to see that they can pursue the fulfilment of their needs and wants through the new system – ie: it relies on people to pursue their own selfish interests, which is exactly what they do, but it guides their actions to ensure the minimisation of harm, and maximisation of benefit.
Call For Assistance:
To describe how this entire vision works in intricate detail is the subject of an entire book series I began writing some years ago, and while I have completed a great deal of that work, it all had to take a back seat as other pressures of life took precedence.
I would like to get back to writing that book series, and to begin the process of actually prototyping and testing the systems required for that vision to be implemented, but I need a lot of help to do this. My aim is to get crowd funding up and running on this website, but in the meantime, if you can help in any way, please use the contact page to get in touch with me.