He is Spartacus

The acronym TAFKAS stands for The Artist Formerly Known As Spartacus.  Why?  Many reasons, but one reason is that the pseudonym I Am Spartacus was pinched by the US Senator from the state of New Jersey, Corey Booker.

However, this is what Senator Booker said in 2000, well before he entered the US Senate:

I began to feel that the main theme of City Council life was really to do the following things: First, it was, by every means necessary, protect your turf.  Second, resist change.  Third, expand one’s sphere of control, always hoping to control more and more resources and authority. Fourth, enlarge the number of subordinates underneath you because having subordinates means having power, having election workers, and keeping yourself in office. Next, protect programs and projects regardless of whether they are effective or not. Finally, maintain the ability to distribute the greatest amounts of wealth from taxpayers to people and organizations of your own choosing.

We now have a system in government where people are more loyal to the bureaucracy than they are to the outcome. We must be loyal to outcomes first and bureaucracies and systems last. If you are outcomes-focused, you start to realize often that you don’t need these controlling and all consuming bureaucracies. . . .You empower citizens by asking more from them, not less. We need to start asking more from our citizens and start making our citizens more responsible and giving them more control and authority over their own lives.

Read those 2 paragraphs again and change City Council for Canberra.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to He is Spartacus

  1. Pyrmonter

    (deep breath) Booker looks about the most palatable of the potential Dem candidates: he’s not stupid, not especially left wing and not the product of the Dem rise in populism: he succeeded by running against the Dem racial establishment, not as part of it (cf Obama, BH).

    He has no hope of winning nomination.

  2. Bruce

    On a slightly different note, so to speak, it’s “Dismal Guernsey” Day (Afferbeck Lauder reference).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtyNLwqljzI

    And don’t forget the flowers / chocolates!

  3. Bazinga

    You could still be Spartacus. When asked, all the gladiators were Spartacus.

  4. This distillation of the political class into one dripping with sociopathy is accomplished through several layers.
    People desire to go into politics for many reasons. I will categorize them into five groups, the first four of which are all jerks:
    1. Category A politicians think they have the best answers. They think they are wiser, smarter, better than you. They seek power in order to institute their fixes. They will use threats of force and actual force (guns) to assure that you comply with their brilliance. In other words, as a matter of course, they are eager to use the very process that starts all wars—the initiation of force—as their way to accomplish their goals. Obama provided a good example with his compulsory medical insurance, but there are many others in Australian headlines regularly. Kevin Rudd exemplifies this category along with Richard Di Natale and Bob Brown. The morality of these politicians is that their chosen ends justify the means.
    2. Category B politicians are sociopaths. They want to achieve power over others in order to parasitize off society or simply to cause destruction. There are multiple obvious examples like Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot, and many others who are less blatant but constantly in the news vying for power over you. These people are immoral to the core. Sociopaths are quite at home in the toxic environment of the cesspit, and I expect they swim in its lower depths as well—what is called the Deep State. They are chameleons. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. Fascists in socialist’s clothing. Thieves pretending to be concerned for the poor. They literally don’t care. Christopher Pyne is typical of this category, as is Adam Bandt.
    3. Category C politicians believe government “service” to be a lucrative career financially, or a stepping stone to one. Such people are a waste of food.
    4. Category D politicians thrive on attention or think they will earn community respect through politics. They may be grandiose and narcissistic. Ideology is relatively unimportant.
    5. Category E politicians are the rarest breed. They seek power only to protect their freedom against the injuries caused by the previous four categories of politicians. They maintain hope that the political process might be useful to stop the bad politicians from wreaking havoc. Leyonhjelm is a good example., as is Craig Kelly.
    Most aspiring politicians fall into categories A-D. So the first massive distillation step occurs: most people who choose to run for office are the type of people who should not be given power.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    Must be tough to fight as a gladiator on a diet of broccoli.

    Cory Booker Says The Earth ‘Can’t Sustain’ People Eating Meat. Liz Cheney Fires Off Meat-Eaters´ Response In One Tweet. (12 Feb)

    On Tuesday, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) had a pointed response to Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), who is a vegetarian and was quoted saying that the earth “can’t sustain” people eating meat. Cheney tweeted, “Hey @CoryBooker I support PETA – People Eating Tasty Animals. @BeefUSA#WyomingBeefCountry.”

    Yummy that the splendidly carnivorous daughter of Vice Prez Dick Cheney should give Cory a serve of red meat like this.

  6. Karabar
    #2933685, posted on February 14, 2019 at 12:20 pm

    Some are a mixture, e.g. Mick Trumble was 1,2 and 4, and Peanut Head is at least 2 and 3.

  7. Infidel Tiger

    Very strange fella is Booker.

    A vegan no less.

  8. Infidel Tiger

    (deep breath) Booker looks about the most palatable of the potential Dem candidates: he’s not stupid, not especially left wing and not the product of the Dem rise in populism: he succeeded by running against the Dem racial establishment, not as part of it (cf Obama, BH).

    He has no hope of winning nomination.

    Tulsi Gabbard is the only Dem worth considering.

  9. Pyrmonter

    Craig Kelly seeks to protect freedom? Evidence please?

    Last time I checked he was an apologiser for Putin; a supporter of the usual complaints by small businesses seeking protection from competition; a proponent of government interference in the private affairs of energy companies, both electrical and petroleum; and an opponent of the freedom of same sex couples to conclude binding inter-personal arrangements.

    With champions of freedom such as these, who needs socialists?

  10. Pyrmonter

    @ IT

    Tulsi Gabbard would be interesting, though she hasn’t rocked the political boat quite as much as Booker did in taking on the old Dem African-American establishment. Her odds are about the same as Booker’s.

  11. Infidel Tiger

    Last time I checked he was an apologiser for Putin; a supporter of the usual complaints by small businesses seeking protection from competition; a proponent of government interference in the private affairs of energy companies, both electrical and petroleum; and an opponent of the freedom of same sex couples to conclude binding inter-personal arrangements.

    Sounds like good policy to me.

    Our energy markets have all been distorted by government interference and the only way to correct it is probably with more interference.

    SSM is travesty of logic.

    Small business has been raped by statism and corporatism.

  12. Infidel Tiger

    Tulsi Gabbard would be interesting, though she hasn’t rocked the political boat quite as much as Booker did in taking on the old Dem African-American establishment.

    Was sad to see Booker playing up to the racial sterotypes the other day.

    He is a highly educated person from a very middle class family and has no need to act “ghetto”.

    That is the trouble with intersectional politics, it devours everyone.

    Kamala Harris is trying to act “street” this week and is getting pilloried.

    It’s going to be Biden or Bernie.

  13. Tombell

    Barry O learned “ street” and look where that got him.

  14. Isn’t Booker the one who tried to conclude a binding inter-personal arrangement with a same-sex tranny in a public bathroom?
    At least our Socialist Scum leaders rape the opposite sex in bathrooms.

  15. Zatara

    It’s going to be Biden or Bernie.

    Both are more likely to be dead of old age or in a rest home before the election.

    Either one would be 4-5 years older than the oldest person ever elected President (Reagan). Reagan was 74, Biden would be 79, Sanders 78.

  16. an opponent of the freedom of same sex couples to conclude binding inter-personal arrangements

    Evidence or retraction please.

  17. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    I am spardoofus

  18. @ TimN

    https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hughes/craig_kelly/policies/1

    Yes but you referred to the freedom of same sex couples to conclude binding inter-personal arrangements. In what way did the SS”M” Act have anything to do with that?

  19. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    Certification. It’s like comparing a the business structures that evaded the operation of the Bubble Act with one you get from ASIC: they’re similar, but would you really want to run commerce on the basis of the former?

  20. Pyrmonter
    #2933836, posted on February 14, 2019 at 3:49 pm

    As between the participants it might not matter at all. The intention of company law was to address relations between the “company” of investors and others. There’s no reason why even now any unincorporated association couldn’t agree to run itself on corporate lines. Many do.

    Similarly, really Kelly was opposed to changes to the law as to how third parties are to deal with LGBTQ etc couples (at least in form – I don’t know what if any change in substance the SS”M” Act actually effected even in that context).

    Whatever might be said about that, it doesn’t seem to me to be a big “freedom” issue.

  21. Pyrmonter

    Tim

    The prohibitikns on outsize partnerships and restrictions as to the form of managed investment schemes, not to say laws governing fundraising, severely restrict the avaialable structures of commercial enterprises. And that’s before you start looking at the mess that follows from their failure (where there are at least 3 different state and federal interpretionsnof the priority rules applying to a truatee’s liquidatoonnor bankruptcy). Certification matters; it was the only thing that really changed.

  22. Pyrmonter
    #2933915, posted on February 14, 2019 at 5:43 pm

    Yes but that’s just an analogy (and most of what you say relates to business structures’ relations with third parties anyway). You haven’t really explained why the SS”M” Act affects any “freedom” of LGBTQetc’s to conclude binding inter-personal arrangements..

    I get the point that, in theory, constraints on a group’s relations with third parties could be such as to affect inter-personal relations among the group – e.g. the outsize partnership prohibition may have that effect for large groups of individuals wishing to conduct business. But I’m not aware of anything like that in the pre-existing regime for LGBTQetc relationships that was in any way relevantly altered by the SS”M” Act.

    That’s why I find it hard to see why that Act was meant to be such a “freedom” issue.

  23. bollux

    Pyr,
    Could you do that in our native tongue?

  24. Pyrmonter

    @ bollux

    Our commercial law is shaped by how you can structure your business. For a variety of reasons, using something that gives the business a separate legal existence – ‘incorporation’ – is both desirable and almost universal (as an aside, until 30 years ago partnerships were fairly common, but with the removal of requirements that professionals act in their own capacity, as was once the case with lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers and the like, the commercial significance of partnerships has almost disappeared).

    From the 1720s until the 1840s it was very hard to form a commercial company in Britain – to do so required an Act of Parliament or the conferral of incorporation by the Crown on an ad hoc basis (as a ‘chartered’ company). While both methods were used to some degree (the railway companies of the first railway mania were, I understand, mostly incorporated by private Act of Parliament, as well as being granted powers of compulsory acquisition), they were expensive. To evade the problems of incorporation the solicitors of the time developed rather unwieldy structures referred to, when Pyrmonter was a student as ‘Deed of Settlement Trust Companies’ that bore some similarity to something that was common in Australia until about 20 years ago, the Unit Trust. They presented many disadvantages: liability of the members was unlimited and to sue or be sued, much of the time you had to serve all the members. That made them inefficient as a means of marshaling capital and they never grew to the size of the great commercial and industrial companies of the later 19th century. Then in the 1840s the laws were relaxed to allow both incorporation on request and, if the shareholders wanted it, limited liability. The assumption in the minds of the legislature appears to have been that liability limitation wouldn’t be universal, but it quickly became so – that is how we (and the other commonwealth countries) all have companies that include ‘Ltd’ in their title; and how these became the most common form of business structure.

    While these are the most common form of structure, some others remain, partly because they do little harm (you can I believe (you could when I last checked) incorporate a public company without share capital and with no liability – I’ve never seen it done, and doubt there are more than a dozen or two; and we have now largely unused provisions for the incorporation of co-operatives), partly because they serve peculiar niche purposes (No Liability companies for example; or ‘strata corporations’); or partly because there are often tax advantages to particular structures (‘joint venture’ structuring, for example). There are however a wide range of structures that are either no longer available; or where we have no counterpart to foreign structures. To name but 2 issues, it is no longer possible to incorporate companies with bearer shares; and there is no provision in Australian law to divide the management of a company into ‘supervisory’ and ‘managerial’ classes of director as is the case with listed German companies.

    All of which is said to illustrate that the grant of a simple certificate recognizing certain facts can be very valuable for avoiding the need to prove preliminary issues that would otherwise need to be proved. So, it is much better for a party to a marriage to be able to refer to a certificate than to have to prove what is necessary to avail himself or herself of the de facto relationships legislation, or the even more cumbersome and contentious (and limited) rights the courts recognised as between de facto partners as a matter of ‘common law’. That was the essence of what Same Sex Marriage legislation changed. There were a few other things (potentially issues of legitimacy, though aside from issues of descent of peerages and some private trusts, I don’t think that matters much now); and rights to bury a deceased partner, but except to those who exulted in their ability to snub queers, it was hard to see what all the fuss was really about.

    Which goes back to my first point: Kelly has created a reputation for standing up for ‘freedom’ that is, at very best, fairly selective.

  25. Pyrmonter

    Copyedit ‘no limitation on liability’ is what I meant to say about public companies.

    I believe Victoria had a form of unlimited proprietary company for legal practices in the late 1990s; that seems to have gone with the Ipp liability capping rules.

  26. All of which is said to illustrate that the grant of a simple certificate recognizing certain facts can be very valuable for avoiding the need to prove preliminary issues that would otherwise need to be proved.

    Like a civil union certificate under the previously existing law?

  27. Pyrmonter
    #2934023, posted on February 14, 2019 at 7:39 pm

    Wasn’t that actually a South Australian law problem which was fixed before the SS”M” plebiscite? I.e not a FLA problem at all, certainly not one that needed fixing by the SS”M” Act?

    But I take your general point that in theory there might have been circumstances where the previous regime, as it existed at the time of the SS”M” push, could have had effects that constrained the participants’ freedoms.

    It’s just that I don’t know of any.

    That’s why I’m still puzzled as to why it was considered such a freedom issue, when it has all the hallmarks of a “progressive” “solution” to a non-problem.

  28. Overburdened

    Most engaged people in their senior years would remember the shift of the previous culture in Oz within the government bureaucracies.
    It became apparent in the 1980’s that Departments were stacked above the glass ceiling with similarly minded people, in concert with rapid changes to processes and procedures, and subsequently work practice.
    Workers were hostage to the changes if they wished to keep their positions.
    Naturally change must have benefit, so these days the method is to say the magic words,’moving forward’, and corporate amnesia takes hold to resolve errors.
    This of course only works for those above the glass ceiling. I remember that in the 1970’s, rank in an organisation did not absolve anyone of making mistakes. Things were more democratic, if you will. The issue with the now entrenched right thinkers is that at one place l worked they moved forward so far that the boundaries and operational model of the area service were identical to how they were 14 years previously.
    Naturally this sort of thing wouldn’t be so bad for the workers if the superiors just said, ‘Hey, [email protected]@ked that up, let’s go back to how it was’. If a worker were to voice this opinion in 2019, there would be questions asked.

    The infiltration is been successful in the USA, UK, Oz, and possibly other places; and the UN set the agenda to occur, by my reading.

    This is not to say we should pine for the old days. They are gone.
    When the public is deemed to be adequately subdued, they will be sponsored or exterminated in a efficient manner meeting all the KPI’s.
    IMO many people will be surprised at how rapidly and violently this will occur, which is part of the plan to lower resistance following the long march to achieve the victory.

  29. Overburdened

    Btw to the author, very few of the humans on the Earth generally give a flying fig about you or the bloke in USA, so call yourself whatever you want.

  30. Overburdened
    #2934060, posted on February 14, 2019 at 8:10 pm

    The tax system is never “changed”. It’s frequently “reformed”.

    Does the rest of the bureaucracy still engage in the archaic practice of “changing” things?

  31. Overburdened

    Reform by definition is change.
    In psychological terms, the set is the driver of behaviour.
    The Agenda is the issue no nitpicking over semantics.

  32. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim Neilson

    With respect, does the tax system change? 40 years after its abolition in 1981, the ATO is about to regain Crown Priority under the guise of ‘anti-phoenixing’ measures.

  33. Oh come on

    Cory Booker used to peddle a centrist shtick before he became a senator. Times change.

    And yes, we all know Booker’s as camp as a row of tents. What’s interesting is that the sex assault allegations made last year mysteriously disappeared, even though they sounded somewhat credible (ie. the alleged victim told others of the assault at the time he claimed it occurred, as opposed to the ‘repressed memory’ BS so beloved of fame whores).

    Betcha if Booker shapes up to be a genuine contender in the Dem primaries, those seemingly buried allegations suddenly roar back into the limelight.

  34. With respect, does the tax system change? 40 years after its abolition in 1981, the ATO is about to regain Crown Priority under the guise of ‘anti-phoenixing’ measures.

    I hadn’t picked up on that.

    Yes, things can sometimes go in a circle. Peanut Head’s policies on franking credit refunds, whatever one thinks of them, are essentially retro.

  35. Pyrmonter

    It is deserving of another thread, but my observation is that most ‘law reform’ involves the replacement of fairly simple legislation of comparatively clear meaning and policy with more prolix expression, ‘illustrated’ by examples that do more to confuse that clarify, drafted in a fashion that gives rise to more rather than less discretion on the part of both administrators and courts. For examples, I’d refer to (1) the laws dealing with what was once termed ‘fraudulent trading’ (trading without expecting to be able to pay your creditors) which now involves considerations of (a) primary insolvent trading liability; (b) the ‘business judgment’ rule; (c) relief for ‘honest and reasonable’ breaches of the prohibition; (d) the ‘safe harbour’ exemption; and, now, (e) aspects of the anti-phoenixing legislation; (2) the once straightforward prohibitions on self-dealing by directors, extensivley modified in the statutory formulations of directors’ duties, the business judgment rule, the safe harbour provisions and the new anti-phoenixing measures; and, for a slightly different variation (involving a particularly uninformative ‘example’) s 254T, the prejudicial dividends prohibition: the former capital maintenance doctrine had its own complexities, but they pale by comparison with the ‘reformed’ standard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.