Cut fuel price, say voters

Cut fuel price, say voters. This is an idiotic idea that raises problems for me in that how can I defend democracy when such attitudes are self-defeating?

If we had a direct democracy, then the fuel excise tax would be reduced to zero and people would go using their cars as usual. And the peak oilers would be pissing into the wind.

And it does not help when:

Last week in Japan, Mr Rudd put pressure on oil-producing nations to lift production and accused them of distorting the market by refusing to do so.

The Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, criticised petrol subsidies and caps on prices in Asian countries, saying they distorted the market and delayed the development of new technology.

...

The Opposition agreed fuel subsidies were unsustainable but said Australia had no right to lecture neighbours.

The government is once again misleading people into believing that things can go as normal. The price signals from the market can be ignored.

The cut in excise tax amounts to a subsidy because the tax is supposed to align the price of Australian produced oil with the world market. The idea was that when the Australian oil ran out, there would be no shock to the economy when we brought oil from overseas, and the depletion was slowed down because of the cost.

Yet, the government is right to say that the price signals is supposed to foster the development of new technologies. But only for other people, not us. And the opposition is right to say that subsidies are wrong. Again for other people, not us.

Ross Gittins is right when he says that our leaders are Too gutless to give us the bad oil:

I think I've stumbled on a new law of politics: the harder life becomes in this capitalist economy, the more our supposed leaders soft-soap us. The harsher it gets, the harder they try to persuade us we're living in a Sunday school where no one plays for keeps.

Take the carry-on about petrol prices. Neither side of politics is prepared to speak the obvious truth about them.

...

The trouble with all this soft-soaping is that it encourages the ignorant notion it's the government's job to solve all our problems. It hurts - fix it!

People don't get on with facing up to their problems because they imagine it just a matter of waiting for governments to act. And then the pollies wonder why the punters increasingly regard them as liars and cheats. Why their cynical behaviour breeds cynicism.

Despite the politicians' obfuscation, the plain truth is obvious: one way or another, petrol prices have got nowhere to go but up.

This would lead to believe that we need strong leaders to force us to act in our best interests when we obviously don't know what they are. This leads towards a form of Totalitarianism as we surrender more and more of our decisions to those who know better.

For democrats, this leaves us in a quandry. How can we defend Democracy when people want to do stupid things?

We can hide behind the idea that the people are ignorant and easily led. I find the opposite case to be true. People believe that they can survive the coming crisis. The real nutters believe Jesus will rescue them in the nick of time.

On an individual basis, they all believe that they can survive. They just haven't considered what 20 million other people doing the same things would actually entail. There is not enough arable farmland for 20 million people to set up their own little enclaves. We could accomodate 10 million as we did back in the 1930's.

Yet, I believe that direct Democracy is the best way forward because it would force us to take responsibility for own decisions. At present, we can blame others for bad decisions because we do not have to make them. As long as we do not accept responsility for our actions, we cannot grow as adults. We are just children pretending to be adults.