AUN! News: Commonwealth Update CHOGM

The Heads of State and Government of the commonwealth meet from Nov. 25 to Nov. 27 in Malta. The leaders of the commonwealth produced several statements including, The Malta Declaration for Networking the Commonwealth for Development, here. The also issued the Gozo Statement on Vunerable Small States, here and the Valletta Statement on Multilateral Trade, here. The Queen's opening address is here. Commonwealth Secritary General Don McKinnon suggested that membership standards be tightened, here. The CHOGM Final Communique is here.

AUN! Opinion: The Usurper is Fallen!

The government of Paul Martin sometime Prime Minister of Canada fell today after having lost the confidence of the nation for the second time in less than a year.

Martin and his liberal government, who ruled without the confidence of the nation for nearly a week after he lost control of the House of Commons in May, was decisively defeated on the floor of the house today when a motion of censure passed 171 to 133.

It is believed that Martin will meet with the Queen’s representative, Governor General Michaelle Jean on Tuesday to ask for the dissolution of parliament and a call for elections.

Hopefully the voters will give one of the three other parties, the Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois or New Democratic Party a majority so that Martin’s usurpation in May will not become a precedent.

The NY Times story is here. The Independent’s story is here.

Update:
Captain's Quarters has the story here.

AUN! Thoughs: Monetary Reform 2, Was Decimalization a Mistake

This is a continuation of my thoughts on monetary reform. My first post on the subject is here.

For more than a thousand years the English speaking people used a pound made up of 240 pennies. After the United States gained its independence, the new nation decided to abandon the English system of monetary weights. It its place they adopted the Spanish dollar as a unit and divided it into decimal units of tenths, hundredths, and thousandths. Later Canada and the other dominions adopted a dollar. Great Britain decimalized the pound after World War II though the first step in that direction, the introduction of a tenth pound coin, the florin was taken in the mid 19th Century.

I believe this may have been a error. The idea is that decimal systems are supposed to be easier because we use a base ten number system. Thus the idea seems to go it is easier to think in hundreds than 240s. However, I who have never used the predecimal system in real life, find it as easy to think in as a decimal system and it has some real advantages

Because 240 is the product of 12 and 20 it is more easily divided into fractions than 100.
While the dollar can only be divided evenly by 2, 4, 5,10, 20, 25, 50, and 100. In contrast, 240 can be divided evenly by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 48, 60, 80, 120, and 240. The only advantage to the base 100 system is that it is divided evenly by 100 so that percentages can be used. However there is an answer to one percent of 240, it is 2.4. The use of a tenth penny coin would allow the use of percentages in the 240 penny system and eliminate even that advantage. In contrast there is no answer to what is the third, sixth, or twelfth part of the dollar.

Lest some one say that a 1/10th penny would be worth to little to be practicable, let me point out that with in the last 200 years the British government issued a Quarter Farthing, that is a coin worth one sixteenth of a penny. Further at today’s silver price, a tenth penny would have a value of 4 cents.

Thus I conclude that decimalization was a mistake.

Writing this made me go and comb through the collection of coins our family has accumulated from foreign travel. Among the interesting numismatic items I found are:

British: a 1907 Edward VII Shilling, Florins (two shilling coins) and Half Crowns (eighth pound) of George V and Elisabeth II, six pence of Elizabeth II, three pence of Elisabeth II, Pennies (not new pennies) of George V, George VI, and Elisabeth II, and a Half Penny Elizabeth II.

Canada: a 1907 Edward VII Cent, 1916 and 1920 George V Cents, a 1901 Victoria Half Dime, two Half Dimes of George V, a 1908 Edward VII Quarter Dollar, and a 1919 George V Quarter.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

The 2005 commonwealth heads of government meeting is fast approching. A who's who of the participents of this years meeting which begins Nov. 25 is here. News about the Commonwealth Youth Forum is here. The report of the Tanzania election observer group is here.

AUN! Thoughts: Constitutionalism

There has been a good bit of discussion recently about Anglosphere legal and constitutional thought and its connections to the middle ages and even earlier. A good site for documents and treatises on anglosphere constitutionalism is http://www.constitution..org/ among the things to be found there are: the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Assize of Clarendon, Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, Smith’s de Republica Anglorum, the Mayflower Compact, Frances Bacon's Elements of the Common Law of England, selected works of Edward Coke, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government, and many other works.

AUN! Thoughts: In Peace and Quietness

I have spent a good part of the day thinking what to write about Armistice Day, then I remembered an admonition by a high school English teacher who was himself recycling a war time propaganda slogan. “It is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.”

So I will content myself with the text of my favorite prayer, one that is of great significance for the history of our people.

“O Eternal Lord God, who alone spreadest out the heavens and rulest the raging of the sea; who hast compassed the waters with bounds until the day and night come to an end; Be pleased to receive into thy Almighty and most gracious protection the persons of us thy servants and the Fleet in which we serve. Preserve us from the dangers of the sea and from the violence of the enemy; that we may be a safeguard unto our most gracious Sovereign Lord, Queen Elizabeth and her Dominions and a security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions; that the inhabitants of our Island may in peace and quietness serve thee our God and that we may return in safety to enjoy the blessings of the land, with the fruits of our labours and with a thankful remembrance of thy mercies to praise and glorify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen”

AUN! Thoughts: Armistice Day

It is now about three hours after the 87th anniversary of the armistice. Let us honor in memory those who gave their lives in the service of the cause of freedom during the Great War Aug. 3 1914 – Nov. 11 1918, may they rest in peace.

AUN! News: US Ambassidor Speaks Truth to Mugabe

U.S. Ambassidor Christopher Dell is under attack by the Mugabe regeme for speaking the truth about that country's economic plight. Dell told students at a university in Zimbabwe that Mugabe's government was responsible for the downturn in the african country's economic fortunes. The Mugabe regeme has responded by claiming Dell is a sexual pervert. The story is here.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

Commonwealth representatives are converging on Malta for the head's of government meeting and other related events, story here. Monitoring for the Sri Lanka presidential election is discussed here.

AUN! News: "Anti Terrorism" Bill defeated in UK

Blair's anti-terrorism bill which would have allowed the government to detain persons for up to 90 days without charging them with a crime was defeated 322-291. Unfortunatly a version allowing detention for 28 days without charge was passed 323-290. Story here

AUN! News: Comonwealth Update

A statement on the recent Zanzibar elections by the Commonwealth observer group, here. An interesting publication for educators was released today, here. The Secritary General is in the solomon islands, story here.

AUN! Thoughts: Subscription, A New and Better Way to Chose Legislators

In my post on choosing government officials, I mentioned one method of choosing representatives that has a great deal of potential.

It would eliminate the need for campaign financing and the pressure for laws that restrict free speech in the name of cleaner elections. It would mean that no one would have to be represented by a member of a different party. I call this system, subscription.

Under this system, instead of having an election to chose one legislator, people contract with a like minded citizen to represent them. Unlike most legislatures, where each member has an equal vote, under subscription each member has a number of votes equal to the number of people who have chosen him as their representative. Likewise the order and time for debate of each member would be determined by the number of people who had chosen the member.

Some may object that this would result in an unmanageably large legislature. However under subscription, the citizens not only chose their legislator, they pay him. The contract which each constituent signed would have a compensation clause committing each constituent to pay the representative X amount per month. The result of this would be a tendency for constituents and representative to want each representative to have a large number of constituents. To illustrate this point a representative with a million constituents could charge a cent per month and have a salary of $10,000, where as a representative with 50,000 constituents would have to charge 20 cents to have the same salary.

In addition to eliminating the problems of campaign finance and representation by a person you voted against, subscription would be much more responsive to the demands of the voters. They could contractually bind their representative to vote in accordance to their wishes or they could simply withdraw their vote from their current representative and give it to one they thought would better represent them.

Subscription also has the virtue that unlike systems requiring elections the plethora of polling places, poll workers and poll watchers would not be necessary. Instead a credentialing committee could check to make sure that the people contracting with the representative really exist and that they have contracted with the representative. This makes subscription especially valuable in instances where a formal organization is not already in place.

In sum, subscription is democratic, is more responsive than systems based on election, doesn’t have the campaign finance problems of elections, and allows everyone to be represented by a person of their choice.

AUN! News Exclusive: Rudi Giuliani On Leadership

NEW YORK — The Hon. Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York, addressed the eighth grade at St. David’s School on leadership in the school assembly hall Thursday evening.

The program which included remarks by the school Headmaster David O’Halloran and an introduction by his Giuliani’s law partner Daniel Connolly, was part of the school’s Alumni Parent Council annual lecture program. Giuliani’s son Andrew attended the school as a boy.

About 350 students, parents, and alumni packed the venue to hear the former mayor, who was widely praised for his leadership after the attacks of September 11, 2001, speak about the principals of leadership.

Giuliani said that a clear vision was the indispensable first principal of leadership.

“You have to know what you believe,” he said. “If you don’t know what you believe, you can’t lead people anywhere.”

The former mayor pointed to Ronald Regan’s belief that state socialism was an international evil and that a government grown too large was sapping the strength and vitality of the American people as an example of this.

“Whether or not you agree with him,” Giuliani said. “Regan knew what he believed. He had reflected on his own experience and drawn conclusions about what needed to be done.”

This meant that Regan knew where he wanted to go and was able to keep in perspective the occasional disagreement of the majority of the populace and forge ahead, he said.

The second principal of leadership is optimism, the former mayor said.

“To be a leader you have to be an optimist,” he said. “You can’t say, ‘things are bad, they are going to get worse, and there is no hope, Follow me!’”

While acknowledging that demagogues often abused the optimistic principal of leadership, Giuliani said it was an important aspect of the art of leadership. He pointed to Sir. Winston L. S. Churchill’s war time speeches a positive example of optimistic leadership.

“The British and French armies had been defeated, the nation was under threat of invasion, and the cities were being bombed every night,” he said. “Every night was like September 11th. People went to bed and didn’t know whether they would wake up in the morning or if their neighbor’s house would be blown up when they did.”

“Churchill was able to be optimistic when there wasn’t much to be optimistic about,” he said. “He spoke of the special ability of a free people to preserver.”

The third principal of leadership, Giuliani said is Courage.

“Courage doesn’t mean not being afraid,” he said. “We often think of courageous people as being supper human, but that’s wrong.”

The former mayor recalled a heroic police officer who had risked his life in the line of duty, but had been almost paralyzed with fear during a press conference after meeting with the mayor. That event, Giuliani said was a revelation for him.

“Courage is dealing with fear,” he said. “It is training to meet the feared responsibilities that you have undertaken.”

That leads to the fourth principal, relentless preparation, the former mayor said.

“It is relentless preparation which allows you to over come your fears,” he said.

Giuliani related how that though New York had no plans for terrorists using air plains as missiles to destroy buildings, the fact that the city did have plans to deal with suicide bombings, sky scrapper fires, and major medical emergencies, meant that he and his senior advisors were able to meet the crisis.

He was able to activate part of the plan for dealing with suicide bombers to order police to guard possible secondary terrorist targets, while the parts of plans for major medical emergencies was activated to triage casualties at near by hospitals and then transfer people to hospitals further uptown, the former mayor said.

Because he and many other city employees had prepared for other crises, they were able to improvise to meet the September 11th attacks, Giuliani said. He said the relentless preparation for other crises, was his main source of confidence on the day of the attacks.

He said, the fifth principal of leadership is understanding your weaknesses. Giuliani said that when he became mayor, he knew that improving the economy and fighting crime where his two most important tasks. He said he knew how to fight crime from his years as a prosecuting attorney, but that he knew he would need help with economic matters. Because he knew his weakness, he was able to get the advice he needed, the former mayor said.

The sixth principal of leadership, he said is communication. However he said that if you followed the first five principals, all you had to do was be strait with people and you would communicate your vision.

Caring about people, Giuliani said is the seventh principal of leadership. However, he emphasized this did not mean doing what people want.

The former mayor related who he was vilified for his workfare program under which able bodied welfare recipients were made to do 18 hours of work for the city to receive their benefits. He said he believed it was not helping the recipients to let them lose their work ethic and pride in working.

Above all, he said caring about people means that, “when things go wrong, you need to be their.”

In answering questions after his talk, Giuliani said that one of the pieces of advice that helped him most on September 11, was something his father had told him as a child. In time of danger and panic it is best remain calm or pretend to remain calm, because that is most likely going to result in seeing a way out of the problem, he said.

AUN! Opinion: Great Posts on Albion's Seedlings

A group of three posts on Albion's Seedlings regarding the Danish Prime Minister's response to pressure to impose Islamic law on the Danish' press and the medieval roots of constitutionalism and liberty are here, here, and here.

AUN! Note: Changing Titles

In the future all titles on this blog will clearly distiguish between fact and opinion pieces. All posts that are news comentary will be labled AUN! Opinion:. All posts with my thoughts on this or that issue will be labled AUN! Thoughts:. All posts that are simply factual links to news stories or original reporting by me will be labled AUN! News:. All notes to readers like this one will be labled AUN! Note:. I am going to try and go back a retitle posts but that may take some time.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

The Secritary General is in Malaysia discussing plans for the up coming heads of government meeting, story here. The Commonwealth is helping to organize private investment in the Pacific Islands, story here.

AUN! Thoughts: On Choosing Government Officials

There is an idea, unspoken often unconscious, that the only way a democratic society can chose officials is by election. That even in democratic societies this not the way all officials are chosen does not occur to people. In this essay I want to explore the various alternatives to elections and the various forms of election.

The most obvious alternative to election is sortition, choosing officials by lot. This method has the advantages of being democratic since every one has an equal chance to be chosen, it is traditional since juries are chosen by lot, and is non partisan in as far as parties can’t influence the choice. The problems with this method is that since everyone has an equal chance of being chosen, it can lead to very unqualified persons being chosen for the office. However for cases such as the jury where the responsibility is divided among 12 people, sortition can provided a useful method of choosing officials.

Another widely used method is indirect election, where a group of elected representatives elect an official. This is fairly democratic since the people chose the representatives, though less so than direct election or sortition. It has the advantage of allowing the electors to chose men in whom they have confidence to chose among candidates they know less well. This was the rational for the electoral college that elects the president. It also is useful in federations because it allows the member governments to choose some or all of the federal officials.

A third method that could be used is examination, where officials are chosen by a test open to all. This was the method by which the Indian Civil Service was chosen and many civil services use this method. It is perhaps not as democratic as election or sortition, because people are not equal in talent. One way examination could be used is in combination with sortition to eliminate the incompetent.

A method that is often used to choose judges is appointment, where one elected official appoints a person to fill a post. This is less democratic since the people have no direct say in who is chosen, though they can get rid of the person who appointed the official. The advantage is that it can make the process less political.

Rotation, citizens filling offices in turn is another democratic method of filling offices. This method would have the same problems of sortition of having incompetent people chosen for important offices.

A method of choosing legislators which I favor is subscription, choosing representatives by contract. This is the system I used in the modified version of Dan’s constitution. In essence, under this system each representative has a number of votes equal to the number of people who chose him as their representative. The advantages of this system is that it is very democratic, it allows people to have representative of their choice with no one excluded because “their candidate” didn’t win the election. This allows all points of view to be heard in the legislature without over representing minority view points. This frankly is my preferred system of choosing the lower house of the legislature.

Election is of course the way most democratic societies today chose their officials. There are a number of variations on this system. There is the single member district system, the multiple member district system, proportional representation and the German cross of PR and single districts.

Single districts have the advantage of there being a direct relation between the elected and the constituent, but have the disadvantage that those who don’t vote for the winning candidate are left without a voice in the legislature.

Multiple member districts can, depending how they are set up, fix some of the problems of single districts. If all the members are elected on the same ballot then a more ideologically diverse group of people that more closely reflects the ideas of the constituents will selected.

Proportional representation is very popular with some academics, because they believe it best represents the people. It does have the advantage of reflecting the ideological beliefs of the people, but it has the serious disadvantage of not allowing the voters to get rid of candidates they don’t like. This system cedes vast powers to private political parties.

The German mixed version retains the advantage close relationship between representative and constituent of single districts while better reflecting the ideological views the electorate. However it retains the problems of the proportional representation system.

Since a republic doesn’t have to be perfectly democratic, I think it helpful to look at other methods used by more aristocratic forms of government.

The classic aristocratic method of choosing office holders is inheritance. This has the benefit of choosing officeholders without the undignified process that characterizes an election and allows the office holder to be educated from birth to fulfill the responsibilities of his office. The problem is that the inherited officeholder may have little interest in the well being of the people as a whole, instead having a narrow class interest. This is not always bad, it can be made to serve a republic, but it must be taken into account.

Another aristocratic form of choosing office holders is by Cooption, where the members of a body, a legislative, judicial, or executive chose new members of the body. This method is could in theory allow those competent to rule to choose like minded successors. The problem is there is no method of correction for a system of pure cooption. If the council becomes corrupt, there is no way to remove the members and start over.

A third aristocratic method of choosing officials is sale. This involves selling the office. Titles of nobility were sold by kings and emperors. At one time commissions in the royal army were sold. While it sounds like corruption, as long as the sales price goes into the state treasury, sale is a legitimate way of choosing officials, though it has disadvantages. The advantage of selling offices is that it takes a potential source of corruption, rich people wanting to influence policy, and turns it into a source of state revenue. The disadvantage is that it gives the rich disproportionate power over the state.

Another method which could be democratic or aristocratic is seniority. Strictly speaking seniority is the system for geriarchy, rule of the old. However this could be used with other methods of selection democratic or aristocratic.

In looking at various methods, I have tried to rank the systems in accordance with how democratic or aristocratic they are. Here is my list from most democratic to most aristocratic.

Rotation or Subscription
Sortition
Election – Multiple Member Districts
Election – Single Member Districts
Election – German System
Election – Proportional Representation
Examination
Indirect Election
Appointment
Seniority
Purchase
Cooption
Inheritance

As we discuss the Union of the English Speaking People, the question of political arrangements is sure to rear its head. I hope this essay will help people organize their thoughts so that such discussions can be more fruitful.

AUN! Opinion: Constitution Monarchy in Australia

I have a new post on referendums and the constitutional monarchy in Australia at The Monarchist. The text of that post is repeated here.

Referendums are in the news, and the question of why a defeated referendum against the monarchy is not considered binding has been raised and I want to weigh in on the issue.If the Australian Constitutional Monarchists are serious about preserving the monarchy, and more importantly the Anglo Saxon tradition of government, then they need to be proactive.

First they need to take the war of language to their enemies. The word republic is a proud one with a long history among our people. But it is not a word that belongs to the anti monarchists alone and they should not be allowed to steal it. Australia IS a republic. It has always been a republic.

The English speaking people have been ruled by republics for almost the entire history of our nation. Since Magna Charta at the latest, England has been a republic. The UK has always been a republic. If that is you mean a system that is not an absolute monarchy, an absolute aristocracy, or an absolute democracy.

In fact, the word Commonwealth as in “the Commonwealth of Australia” means republic. Commonwealth is a calque, a word for word translation, of the Latin res publica which means “the public things” or “the public matters.”

The question is not weather Australia should be a republic, that question was settled centuries ago. The question is weather the Head or State should be Elizabeth, by the grace of God of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith, or some political hack who can get two thirds of parliament to vote for him.

Second, imply quite rightly that the reason the anti monarchists don’t know that Australia is and has always been a republic, albeit a crowned one, is because they don’t give a hoot for the history and traditions of the people of Australia or the larger English speaking nation to which they belong.

Further point to the fact that the anti monarchists real goal is not equality before the law, but the replacement of the monarch who is a symbol of the whole people with a either a political hack who can compromise his way to power or a partisan politician who will be beholden to one party or the other.

Thirdly, if as looks likely, another referendum is going to happen anyway, then the monarchists need to get out in front and demand one and demand the wording that they want.

The goal of this should be two fold, first, to get a wording that will likely uphold the monarchy, and secondly, to insert wording that will preclude another referendum for a full generation.

If I were writing the referendum it would read something like the following:

That the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Australian Territories relying on the blessings of divine providence do proclaim their continuing allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth of Australia, Queen and the free and equal system of laws of the English speaking people and their desire that after the aforementioned Elizabeth her heirs and successors according to law shall be King or Queen of Australia. They proclaim their desire that the King or Queen of Australia shall in the future reside within the Commonwealth of Australia during one year in ten and that during that time there shall not be a Governor General. They do further proclaim their desire that henceforth the Governor General shall be chosen, if the monarch does not desire to appoint one of her children or siblings to that post, as follows. All subjects of the Australian crown who: have won the Nobel Prize, have won the gold medal at the Olympic Games, have earned the rank of brigadier, commodore, or air commodore or above in the Royal Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force respectively, or have served as governor of one of the states, shall be candidates and the people of Australia shall elect one of them as Governor General using a single transferable ballot. The people of Australia do further proclaim that they do desire that this question be closed for the next 25 years and that no amendment affecting the monarchy be brought before them during that time.

Then, the supporters of the monarchy have to get out there and fight, not to defeat their opponents measure, but win passage of their own. They have to immerse themselves in the great political tradition of our people, the monarchists and the anti monarchists. Locke, Sidney, Blackstone and yes John Adams. A great place to start this research, though it is an explicitly republican site is here.

I don’t say this course of action will necessarily be successful, but if the monarchy is going to be preserved for future generations it has to be fought for. If the supporters of the Constitutional Monarchy are to win, they need to deserve to win and that means being willing to dare.

AUN! Opinion: A Victory for Human Rights

The people of Brazil struck a blow for individual rights when they rejected a national gun ban by an overwhelming majority this weekend. Story here, here, and here.

An international cabal of organizations determined to deny people the right to own the tools necessary for self defense poured into Brazil, hoping to set a precedent that could be used to further restrict the rights of the people to resist aggression.

Fortunately a coalition of groups dedicated to the preservation of the right to own arms helped local citizens to defend their rights. This was a major human rights victory.

In the battle over human rights few issues are a contentious or as important as the battle over the right to own weapons.

Because of the widespread use of arms to oppress and kill, many international organizations have drawn the totally erroneous conclusion that only governments should have arms. The problem is that many of the victims are killed by arms in the hands of the government or quasi government organizations. The 20th century is notorious for, above all, the massive scale of Democide, government killings of their own citizens, committed by totalitarian governments.

The use of arms by criminals is also pointed to as a reason to ban arms. This ignores the obvious fact that criminals by definition don’t obey the law. Guns are likely used more often to deter crimes than to commit them.

Murderers either dictators or garden variety criminals, do not have a right to disarmed victims. On the contrary, people have an absolute right to defend themselves.

Of course the international press has as usual let itself act like an arm of the gun ban cabal, repeating their arguments. The most obvious case is the use of the phrase “manipulating people’s fears” in several of the stories. The AP story doesn't even pretend to be objective, taking the motives of the anti gun groups to be true without arguement.

Thankfuly, the people of Brazil struck a blow for human rights and gave the government power movement a resounding defeat.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

The Secritary General will be in Malaysia next week to discuss preparations for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, story here. Commonwealth Observers will be on hand in the United Republic of Tanzania for the elections on 30 October 2005, details here.