Category: Eco-philo-pol

Rhys has written a long response to my essay about the free market economy, presumably from his room at the Sheraton Imperial in Kuala Lumpur. I think it’s a really great read. He even reveals the names of the "intelligent people" at university I used to have debates with. It seems that Rhys and I are more or less in the same ball court, and playing on the same team for the most part, except that we might argue about what the team’s name is. I’d just like to say a few things in my defence.

First, whilst it’s true that my economic views may have shifted back towards the "right" (the Political Compass certainly suggests this), this does not necessarily equate to a shift in political allegiance from the traditional "left" parties to the Liberals. I think this point is most clearly demonstrated by using British politics as an example. In Britain, the Labour party is traditionally classified as left, but under Tony Blair the party has moved in a decidedly Thatcherite direction. This is more or less what Rhys was getting at when speaking about shades of grey and when he says we’re all in the middle. I don’t think my essay said that the current ALP are advocates of big left government, and Rhys perhaps needn’t have jumped to the ALP’s defence quite so swiftly. Indeed, I’m not even saying that the Liberals are a good exponent of "small" government. Far from it. I totally, one hundred percent agree with Rhys when he questions the Liberals’ commitment to free trade. And yes, it was the Hawke/Keating government that made by far the largest steps in the direction of free trade. It was also the Hawke/Keating government that moved us away from an unruly and uncompetitive system of awards to a much better enterprise bargaining system, though I don’t think that goes quite far enough. The Liberals are set to reform industrial relations even further. So my article was definitely not about Liberal versus Labor, but rather about economic philosophies in general. Anyway Rhys, you can rest assurred that the Liberals have certainly not captured my vote!

Second are the notions of "big" and "small" government. I agree that these terms can sometimes be a bit vague, but I think they are used fairly consistently in the media and literature and have pretty well understood meanings attached to them. I concede that I could have this wrong, and that not everybody understands the same thing by these terms, so here’s what I mean. Big government is one which taxes highly, subsidises heavily, often intervenes and implements generous welfare schemes. Small government is one that taxes minimally, subsidises rarely (if ever), never or only occasionally intervenes, and believes that overly generous welfare schemes serve to harm society in the long term. Rhys and others might argue that I’ve still used relative terms here such as "highly", "heavily" and so forth. That’s true. But at any given time and place, these terms are resolved by comparing the different policies on offer. Other than this, my only recourse here, I fear, is to wave my hands and say it might be more meaningful to look at the reasons for setting taxation rates at a particular level. That is, what will the tax dollars actually be spent on? Maybe some people might have something further to add here (or not).

Finally, like I said in my original post, I’ve decided nothing. One thing is definite, and that is whatever my point of view on economics is, it certainly will not translate into a vote for any particular political party at the next election. Besides, I figure that being a paying member of a certain "far left" party (whose members would probably hate me now if they read my essay) obliges me to vote for them in the next election. I can live quite comfortably with this seeming contradiction for now. Hopefully I’ll have ample time in the future to resolve this issue.

Upon entering university, I was a staunch economic rationalist. I was as firm in my beliefs about the virtues of the free market as any wet-behind-the-ears eighteen year old could be. I attribute this largely to my year 11 and 12 economics teacher (Mr. Hutchinson). By degrees, partly because of the left-leaning environment I found myself in at university and due to the highly intelligent people who were telling me that my position was the wrong one – you all know who you are ;-) – I was persuaded to see that free markets were not the solution to the world’s problems. I was, and still am to some degree, impressionable, though hopefully I’m a bit more capable of thinking for myself these days. My friends began to refer to me as a "bleeding heart lefty". However, during the course of my postgraduate studies, which introduced me to complex systems theory, I was once again forced to re-evaluate my position, and at this point in time, I’m not sure where I stand. The idea of small government and the free market economy has once again become appealing to me. So much of my reading highlighted the ideas of structure emerging from the bottom up, of the resilience and robustness of systems in which there is no top down or central point of control. Furthermore, I now begin to understand why staunch free market economists such as Milton Friedman argue that the free market is morally unassailable (this is something I hadn’t thought about in my first incarnation as an economic rationalist).

If a natural disaster of Hurricane Katrina’s proportions occurred somewhere in Australia, would authorities face an outbreak of lawlessness similar to that being experienced in New Orleans? My gut feeling is "I don’t think so". What’s happening over in Louisiana is insane. Looting is bad enough, but taking pot shots at rescue helicopters, how low is that?

During BIFF I watched two films that touched on the subject of Islam and its relationship to the West. It set me to wondering about what most westerners (and in particular western Christians) actually know about Islam and the Qur’an, as opposed to what they learn from the news and during interviews with outspoken men whom some parts of the Muslim community look up to as "leaders". It also worries me that many Muslims appear to forget about the deep-rooted similarities between Islam and Christianity/Judaism.

For instance, and maybe I’m starting at too basic a level, how many of you, gentle readers, realise that the Qur’an states that the Scriptures (i.e. the Torah/Old Testament) and the Gospel (i.e. the New Testament) are to be adhered to (and it states this not just once but many times), that Jesus was born of Mary via one of God’s miracles (Surah 3: The Imrans), and that Jews and Christians who adhere to the Scriptures and the Gospel should have nothing to fear or regret (Surah 5: The Table)? Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic religion, which means followers of these religions all believe in the same God. The Qur’an reiterates many of the stories told in the Torah and the Gospel. If there is so much overlap, why, as Muslims believe, did God need to reveal the Qur’an to Mohammed via the Angel Gabriel?

In some respects, the Qur’an can be looked upon as a reminder to observe the Scriptures and the Gospel. If one reads the Qur’an, one finds that God is displeased with the way in which many Jews and Christians practice their faith. Catholicism, for instance, turns God into a Holy Trinity made up of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (the concept of the Holy Trinity was not born until the time of the Ecumenical Councils in the 4th Century A.D., and in fact Christian Doctrine by this time had undergone quite a transformation from the faith practiced by the earliest Christians). Jews fail to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah and that he was born of God’s miracle. Islam acknowledges Jesus Christ as an important prophet and the only prophet to have been born through divine intervention. However, Islam stops short of making Jesus part of the God figure.

People often don’t realise that Islam shares common roots with Christianity and Judaism because God is called "Allah". But this is simply the Arabic word for God (with a capital ‘G’), in the same way that Dios is the Spanish word for God. The Arabic word for god (little ‘g’) is "illah" (not sure whether this is the usual Romanisation of the word). Therefore, when talking about Islam and "Allah" in English, it is appropriate to use the term "God" rather than "Allah". I think this small step on its own, if adhered to in the literature and in the media and if Muslims used this convention when speaking in English, would go some way towards bridging the divide between moderate/secular Muslims and the rest of the Australian community. Distrust breeds where ignorance lies, and every small thing that can highlight similarities rather than differences in a tension filled situation must be siezed upon.

The onus is on moderate Muslims to stand up and denounce extremism and to educate non-Muslims about their religion. I think it’s sad that many Muslims – and most visibly some so-called Muslim clerics/leaders (Islam, like Judaism but unlike most of the branches of Christianity, has no clerical hierarchy) – seem to overlook the many passages in the Qur’an that beseech them to understand Judaism and Christianity, and to be mindful of the Scriptures and the Gospel. Extremists are the vocal minority. Where are the voices of the moderate majority? Where are the Crazy John’s, the Zinedine Zidane’s and the millions of others who practice moderate Islam? Stand up and be counted.

Note: It is not my intention in this article to either endorse moderate Islam or denounce it, but rather to highlight only a few of the many commonalities between the Abrahamic religions. At the risk of stating the obvious, I do denounce Islamic extremism, just as I denounce any other philosophies that promote violence and terror. As those closest to me would realise, this article has nothing to do with my own religious/philosophical persuasions.