Guest Post: thefrollinckingmole – Do we save the administrative state?

The thoughts in this article were triggered by one of the most RTWT pieces produced over the last week or so since it was shown that EVERY agency, military, civilian and NGO involved in Afghanistan was worse than clueless.

Hundreds of thousands of experts, top in their respective fields, all failed to see 20 years and trillions of dollars were no match for hard men with a cause. CIA, FBI, NSA, UN, ASIO, Medicans san Frontiers, Oxfam, and a thousand other trustafarian dilettantes all poured time & resources onto sand.

Im not going to rehash the points made in that, and other well written articles about the failure. Its catastrophic, all consuming and cannot be denied.

Instead Im going to focus on trying to save the administrative state.
Something I hate personally but will credit with (in its original forms) assisting in reducing inequalities and regulating behaviour between the classes.

What Im afraid of: A turn to rule by emotion, breeding, wealth, or personal influence and connections. Tsarist Russia might be seen as the epitome of this, which led to the horrible spiral of repression, oppression then revolution.

In my opinion there is only one key way to save the administrative state.
The bureaucracy must learn to fear the general public.
The local planning officer should flinch when a permission is requested knowing if they apply the regulations capriciously or in a way that damages an individual they will lose their job and be liable for economic loss.
The Clean energy finance guru should shit his pants seeing electricity prices rise, knowing, without a doubt hes about to be sacked and blacklisted from any similar position.
The various health authorities inflicting economic and mental ruin on hundreds of thousands of people need to be jailed and their departments disbanded, every person in them marked as pariah.
Politicians must be made to enact legislation through parliament only, not assign vast reams of law making and regulation to self interested silos of various regulatory agencies. And when one of those regulations causes harm to an individual they must be held personally accountable for the losses suffered.

We exist in an awful state at the moment which I would call anarcho-tyranny, where we are sowed incredibly thickly with laws and regulations, yet connections or money mean they are selectively applied.
Billy Bongsmoke cant leave his LGA for fear of a fine equal to 3 months of his disability pension, yet Nicole Kidman flys in direct from Singapore because shes ‘economically vital”.
The only way out is complete accountability.
We need lawyers prepared to lodge thousands of damages claims every time a new regulation is enacted.
We need a political party that removes any ability of the bureaucracy to generate law or regulation without compensation paid up ahead of its imposition to those affected.
And lastly we need sackings and consequences for every fuckup. No shuffling sideways, no mercy, if a bureaucrat has blighted another persons life with a bad decision then justice demands they face a similar penalty as restitution.

This and only this approach will save the administrative state.
As it exists it is an almost completely closed self serving loop. Appeals and complaints pit atomised individuals against organisations wallowing in OPM and effectively unlimited resources. And “watchdogs” supposed to provide some accountability are designed to respond to the bureaucracy, not the individuals affected.
Introducing fear of the public is the only way to make the managerial class realise the danger they are in.
They honestly don’t realise in many cases they harm they inflict, and with a near complete absence of painful personal stimuli have no reason to do so.

With no skin in the game they are ignorant enough to reach for repression as their tool of choice.
Democratic repression is no better than repression by Theocracy , Monarchy or any of the charnel house “isms” of the 20th Century.
I am genuinely concerned we return to the age of “Propaganda of the Deed”, where people ruined by government fiat decide that just smashing stuff up and becoming ungovernable is as legitimate as voting for the uniparties every 4 years.

This entry was posted in Government. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Guest Post: thefrollinckingmole – Do we save the administrative state?

  1. Salvatore, Understaffed & Overworked Martyr to Border Closure says:

    (to every word of that.)

    Report comment
  2. Rohan says:

    Yes. Only the full restoration of accountability will save us from this malevolent blight of authoritarianism.

    Report comment
  3. Muddy says:

    As several others here have noted – sorry, I cannot think of names right now – I believe we are headed toward a type of feudalism, though I am possibly misusing that term. What I mean by that is a breakdown of national and state identities, replaced to a degree by a loyalty – voluntarily or under duress – to a regional individual, organisation (utilities provider), or issue. Energy insecurity will be the central plank in this new tribalism, and the electrickery grid will be a target of conquest.

    Perhaps I’ve just watched Tank Girl with Lorie Petty too many times?

    Report comment
  4. OldOzzie says:

    Washington Times Editorial – Australia’s pursuit of ‘zero-COVID’

    The failed Australian model


    It appears we now live in a COVID-19 world. The virus isn’t going away, in fact, it’s mutating. Like every flu season, many scientists predict there will be a COVID-19 season. We need to learn to live with the virus, not in fear of it.

    Australia seems to be having a difficult time grasping this reality. It’s pursued a ‘zero-COVID’ strategy and is in total lockdown until 70% of its population is vaccinated. At 80%, statewide lockdowns will be eliminated and some international travel will be allowed. The country’s leaders have hinted that reopening could happen as soon as late October, but there are no promises. COVID-19 cases have surged to 750 per day in the past week in Sydney.

    Meanwhile, Australia’s citizens are living in a police-run state. Scores have been arrested for attending anti-lockdown protests, where officers fire pellet guns and use pepper spray to disperse the crowds. Soldiers march through the streets to ensure nightly curfews are not violated. Compliance checkpoints have been assembled in local neighborhoods. Fines for breaking certain rules have risen to $3,700. Playgrounds have been closed; businesses shuttered. Economists predict Australia’s latest round of lockdowns will cost around $12.5 billion.

    Australia appears to be going through its own Stanford Prison Experiment, where college students were separated into two groups: prison guards and prisoners in 1971. The psychology test had to be ended after only six days, as the student guards became increasingly sadistic, and its “prisoners” depressed and showing extreme signs of stress. Empower the man, and he will take more. Diminish the citizen, and they’ll learn to take less.

    Yet, in some areas of the country, tensions are running high. This weekend, thousands of protesters turned up in Sydney’s city center, despite warnings and checkpoints by the police. In Melbourne, hundreds of people marched through the city, defying local authorities. And in Brisbane, thousands gathered in the city’s botanic gardens.

    The country’s leaders are aghast. The virus continues to spread. Some of Australia’s Premiers have recently admitted even with very strict lockdowns and 99% public compliance, they cannot stop the delta variant.

    But that doesn’t mean they’re not going to try. Curfews have been extended, and residents are only allowed to leave their homes for essential activities like shopping for food and medicine or getting a vaccination.

    Australia’s ‘Zero-COVID’ policy is draconian, irrational, anti-scientific, and a good example of elected leaders using the pandemic to flex their political power. Americans should take heed of what’s happening there – for it should never be allowed in this country.

    Report comment
  5. OldOzzie says:

    Australia appears to be going through its own Stanford Prison Experiment, where college students were separated into two groups: prison guards and prisoners in 1971. The psychology test had to be ended after only six days, as the student guards became increasingly sadistic, and its “prisoners” depressed and showing extreme signs of stress. Empower the man, and he will take more. Diminish the citizen, and they’ll learn to take less.

    Seen in Inspector Lewis – Season 9 Episode 1: One for Sorrow

    Report comment
  6. Kneel Kneel says:

    “… for it should never be allowed in this country.


    Should never be allowed – period.

  7. Destroyer D69 says:

    Bring in “Right of Recall”availability with TEETH as have a large number of foreign governments(local.state and federal)

  8. Kneel says:

    “…whether Due Process has been followed…”

    A key point, IMO.

    So, because of high risk, I am quarantined with only “might be” – OK, I can live with that as a precaution.

    But once I show – using their test – that I am not infected, what right have they to keep me locked up? Where’s my due process, huh?

    Be very careful, pollies – remove due process for us, you may find it is removed for you as well. Wouldn’t want to see you beaten to death or hanged by an angry mob without any due process, that would be bad, right? Here’s a tip -you need to get out of the social media and MSM bubble, and talk to the other 90% of the population.

    Report comment
  9. Kneel says:

    “The States have no Legal Power whatsoever to close the State Borders.”


    Err, not so sure about that. My understanding is that they can’t treat residents of other states differently. As far as I know, they can close borders, but if they do they are closed to everyone – no exceptions because you are resident in any particular state etc. So, yes – they are in breach, but not for the closures, rather for the exceptions for their own residents.

    Report comment
  10. 2dogs says:

    “Section 92 of the Australian Constitution states that there should be the FREE movement of People and Commerce between the Australian States. The States have no Legal Power whatsoever to close the State Borders.”

    The High Court reads in an exemption to Section 92 to allow states to prevent the entry of “deleterious” material, which South Australia, for example, has for many years relied on to protect them against fruit fly bearing fruit.

    This has been the exemption relied upon by the states.  However, it does only go so far.  Clive Palmer challenged these restrictions, and only lost on a 3-2 decision.  But some statements in obiter in that case clarified these limits on this exemption.  Actions such as this may well have made the QLD border restrictions unconstitional.  The problem here is the arbitrary discrimination involved; the QLD government might find they need to prove that anyone they are seeking to ban is more deleterious in terms of COVID-19 than the NRL players they have allowed.

  11. Bulldog says:

    100% spot on …. incentives and accountability matter.

  12. 2dogs says:

    We need to change the way we select public experts, as it has become very undemocratic, and those we do elect simply abdicate their responsibilities to them.



    Report comment
  13. Kneel says:

    “We need to change the way we select public experts…”

    Perhaps we need to make it clear that “I was only following the advice of the experts” is no more an excuse than “I was only following orders” – that, as an elected official, it is your job to hear such advice, but NOT act on ONLY such advice; that the “greater good” often requires tempering such advice under the advice of other areas of expertise that also have a large impact on a large part of the population.

    How we make such known, when the MSM is completely “on side” with the poltiical narrative and delights in denigrating any deviation from the orthodoxy is obviously difficult. Yet I feel compelled to try – and have, by making such known to my own “representatives”. It doesn’t appear to have had any effect, however each grain of sand adds up and at some point, there is a dune. Perhaps I will not win on this, but I most certainly won’t if I don’t try. And so try I must, I must add my own grain of sand. And encourage others to do likewise. Who knows? To mix metaphors, perhaps YOUR grain of sand will break the camels back.

    Report comment

Comments are closed.