UNCOMFORTABLE OPINIONS

I came across an interesting book recently, about the Land Boom in Melbourne in the 1880s.
To this unlearned Soul it was quite revealing, about the way Victoria’s colonial government operated, from the gold-rushing 1850s, through to the beginning of this century.
Having chosen some years ago to investigate the reasons for our sociological (and Spiritual) corruption, and after reading “The Land Boomers” (by Michael Cannon, published in 1967 by Melb Uni Press), it’s very easy to see why the trends of self-interest, prevarication, deceit and delusion are common-place, indeed the dominant paradigm today in a society that understands and adapts, purely in order to get-by and get-on in the world, to the ways of it’s forefathers and the forefathers of it’s leaders.
This morning I was thinking about the book’s contents, when a question arose oriented around the word “reference”.
It related to the question of;
“How close to the root-source of our information do we go when we form an opinion on one topic or another?”
How interested are we in establishing it’s Truth?
We’re always forming opinions, but as can be seen everyday, many opinions are found to be wrong when viewed in the light of retrospective analysis.
When an opinion has a major influence upon a society, affecting the way that society functions, and is later found to be a wrong opinion with bad effects, the done thing may be to place it under the microscope of a royal commission or a judicial inquiry to establish the “fracture” in the “train-of-thought” or “links of information”.
What has the opinion been based upon?
To what source of information did the opinion-maker refer, and most importantly, how correct was that source? For example,

“Where do universities get the information upon which they base their economics or political science courses?”
Because an opinion is the most popular or has held sway for a long time in no way makes it correct.

As we are finding today, economic rationalism for example, as far as the well-being of the whole population of a nation (and the planet) is concerned, is faulty, and is based on tenets that have been accepted as true for hundreds of years.
Back then it may well have been the best policy for a government to have.
Some minor fault in a respected source of information of two or four or six hundred years ago, may be very hard to find, may have been or may still be regarded as insignificant, yet it is possible it can have horrendous repercussions upon a much further evolved society, such as in ours today.
Another dangerous fact is that as long as things are paddling along okay (especially for those on top) there appears no desire to delve into establishing the Truth on such matters. This, either because of man's laziness or fear of rocking the 'devil-you-know' (and one's own security).
Opinions are often formed on the most scant information. In daily life it's near impossible to check our sources to establish fact from fiction - (I suppose an acceptable 'minor detail' when making conversation amongst friends on the streets and in the pubs).
Of course when an opinion is broadly voiced, and is one that has a powerful effect on the future direction of a whole socio-economic system, it is obviously quite important that the opinion be based on a sound analysis of the facts, so that the society won't have to bear the brunt of someone's ill-formed and so potentially devastating belief.
"How reliable are the Government's and Opposition's opinions?"
"How reliable are their 'sources of reference'?"
In order to establish the Truth about the information, we must question not only the validity of the sources of information, but also why the voicer of that opinion has chosen that argument. Are they honestly interested in establishing and upholding truth above all else, or are they out, however they can, to aggrandise their own position, so accepting, rejecting or perverting the information as it suits them, convincing themselves that what they say need only be 'good enough' to satisfy their immediate ends, by fooling the people for some of the time?
Why do some prefer left-wing politics while others, often of the same family, school or occupation prefer the ideologies of the right?
We know it's not just the information that comes to them when they reach voting age, but very much the influences in their earlier, formative years, and the information and opinions they are expected to take-on as they grow.
As children, we are all vulnerable to the opinions of adults who are only very, very rarely capable of expressing an unbiased view.
Of course, that's another adult trick, to make it ‘sound’ unbiased.

I recall being ridiculed by my older brother once because I said I preferred to sit on the fence on a political point we were discussing.
"You've got to have an opinion!" He exclaimed.
I couldn't agree with him. Now I say, perhaps that's okay, but it's worthless unless we can be sure of the sources to which we refer when forming our opinions.
So although it's expected that every serious thought we have must be based on an opinion (and you're regarded as spineless if you're not opinionated), I believe that unless that opinion is based on irrefutable facts, it is a better person who holds no opinion one way or the other. At least until some substantial evidence influences them.
How many are chuckling at the "offer-they-couldn't-refuse" substantial influence scenario.
Indeed?
How many of Victoria's parliamentary decisions over the last 150 years, have been made with all the facts at hand, provided by altruistic and incorruptible sources to altruistic and incorruptible politicians?
With reference to the aforementioned book on the boom and bust years of the 1880s and 1890s in Victoria, it is seen that self-interest was one primary motive of our 19th century state parliamentarians who for example, ordered the construction of Melbourne's metropolitan rail network.
Those same members of parliament who "borrowed" millions of pounds from the uninformed depositors of the banks upon which they sat as directors, to speculate on large sections of land at Broadmeadows, St Albans, Box Hill, Lilydale, Sandringham, Frankston and others, just before the rail networks were established.
Needless to say, Victoria ended up with plenty of very wealthy parliamentarians, several closed financial institutions, many more ruined depositors, and by 1892, after a spending spree nearing fifty million pounds sterling (in 1891, no small sum) on a railway extravaganza, a bankrupt economy. Little wonder commuters were still riding in 60 year old railway carriages as late as the 1970s!
In the late 1960s Victoria was still paying off the debts incurred by the self-seeking land-boomer government members of eighty years earlier.
The paradox is of course that, aside from the negative aspects of urban sprawl, and the popularisation of land speculation that this same suburban public transport system tended to encourage, and forgetting the never-content cynics of public transport, today's citizens could be (if the current government were not so anti-anything -for-the-masses) benefiting enormously from it's rail and tramway network.

So, before we caste the first stone with an opinion, we should endeavour to remain above the influences of "clever orators" and persuasive voices, because as unfortunate as it is, our whole train of thought on politics, be they of the left or right, is riddled with opinions that are very definitely not based on 100% irrefutable facts, so must be questioned in the interests of the future of the community at large.
With the knowledge that political structures world-wide are coming under more intense scrutiny by citizens, of the world community, questions arise that may challenge a great many of our comfortable opinions. For the sake of the future of the planet, these uncomfortable questions can only be seen as good.
How far back must we go in our search to establish the truth about our social and economic dilemmas?
Have we all gone too far down the road of selfishness to think intelligently about correcting our long-founded, misinformed and very destructive opinions on a "Good Society"?
It is up to all the people to ensure that they themselves are all sure of the facts, when choosing the type of government to establish and maintain social order.
We must shake off our lazy approach to politics and economics.
The price of Social and Economic Freedom is-
Eternal Vigilance.