Saturday, July 13, 2019

What else explains their actions and their fear of judging based upon the merit of an individual?

Liberals don't believe their victim classes really have agency as people, or free will.

On the right there seldom is a racism steeped in fear; on the left, there is a pandemic racism, cemented in the bigotry of low expectations. Victim class members are treated as infants in need of protection, perhaps as two year olds, whose only duty is to have tantrums and be cared for.

Viewing whole classes of people as pathetic is far worse than the sin of fearing them as profound.

The left are steeped in intersectionality. People on the right usually believe in merit, and in judging large groups of people as large groups of people, but individuals by their own value.

On the intersectional left, they secretly are all white supremacists, at least in how they view the world and act out that belief, and they often act to fight what they ironically believe to be a present supremacy of the white race. This is reflected in different standards for different races.

An example is victim classes needing lesser scores to enter university than other classes. Other examples abound, liberals, for instance, speak in smaller words when speaking to perceived victim class members.

They also don't hold an individual belonging to a victim class to the same standards when judging culpability for one's own calamities in life.

The intersectional left ironically, in the way it lives its beliefs in the real world, judges victim classes as though they were non-actors in life, lesser creations. What else explains their actions and their fear of judging based upon the merit of an individual? They act as though they believe their victim classes to be inferior, surely that is bigotry.

Monday, July 8, 2019

If you attack people for employing people, expect less and less-desirable jobs to exist ...

If you attack people for employing people, expect less and less-desirable jobs to exist, and for employees whose productivity would drive our economy's engine, to move elsewhere, and drive the engines of other economies.

A woman asks what to pay a gardener if she needs one, and what hours and conditions of employment are right. While some helpfully point out the legal requirements, and the going rates and practices in the area, the inevitable comment is posted, this time about food. The poster, a university educated black woman, insists that employers who don't serve their 'helper' lunch are essentially the devil.

Similar attacks are made on employers who allow their domestic worker (maid or gardener) to wear their work clothes outside of their place of employment (as though they were a toddler or pet the employer has a right to dress or prevent from wearing what the employee happens to want, outside of work), or who don't buy their child's nanny a steak dinner when going out, as though she were part of the family, in the sense of a 'one of the family' pet, rather than what they are, an employee, if I read the anti-employer Facebook posts' attitudes right.

I suspect that the dignity of unemployment is not preferred by such employees, to having a livelihood and the ability to feed their children. In fact, many employees who are given lunch at work, take it home to feed their children. Some would prefer payment in cash than in kind, after all, domestic workers are human beings, not beloved pets, often, they may prefer to buy their own food, for less or better quality or nutrition, in their financial planning goals.

A while back, a farmer was crucified by South Africans, in their nasty views of him, because he dared to let a woman of a different race take a ride in his livestock cage in the back of his pickup truck. Apparently, she had not only asked for a lift, but had preferred the fresh air due to her health at the time. The result is likely that less farmers will be prepared to give strangers lifts.

Most people of my generation, myself included, have no intention of ever hiring a domestic worker in South Africa. Why bother, when employers are treated as the devil, and already on probation, no matter what.

South Africa's government, and a highly misguided local Catholic Church, has compared some jobs, such as those which migrant labour travels hundreds of kilometres to perform, to slave labour. Minimum wages, have solved that problem quite effectively, as farmers have sold and emigrated, or switched to less labour intensive crops, causing South Africa to have to import food, and giving the workers involved the great and kind dignity of having no way to feed their families.

South Africans have two very distinct reputations in the workplace, those of expat South Africans, who are known as incredibly hard workers, and those of the average South African semi-skilled worker, and recent social grant paid for university graduate. The word 'entitlement' is often used by local employers wishing to find someone who will take the bull by the horns and work with enthusiasm.

Whenever a law firm advertises a job where an intern must have a car, or driver's licence, cries of racism, and attack after attack on the law firm commence. This despite the fact, that many black South Africans own cars, and that the job for a paid intern, a candidate attorney, in a law firm, usually involves serving documents on other law firms, filing them in time at court, and court appearances, etc. All of which require reliable and timeous transportation.

I have often pointed out that if all the firms who demanded candidates have cars were prevented from doing so, and thus could not afford the cost to firm of an intern, those competing for jobs where cars are provided by the firm would be competing against hundreds of more candidates for each job of that nature. Most firms which don't demand a candidate with a car, are situated in the centre of town, where no car is required by many such firms. Take away the jobs you see as bad, and the demand for jobs you see as good sky-rockets, and every candidate for an internship has to not only offer more to get the job, but is likely to get less in return.

Something similar happens when laws protecting tenants from rent increases are passed. It stops being as profitable to rent out property, and so many new developments never happen, and rent protected apartments seldom are maintained or kept up to standard by landlords.

Minimum wages, and hounding employers for paying less than sentiments prefer, usually just make it illegal or undesirable to hire the young, new graduates, and those needing to be upskilled. Candidate attorneys, for instance, are competing with legal secretaries and messengers and drivers for similar work, but messengers, legal secretaries and drivers don't need to be extensively upskilled to be of any value to a firm. Firms take into account the hassle of hiring someone into what they pay them. If you aren't worth the effort, you won't get the work.

In the legal industry, if interns wanted the industry to give them better pay and conditions on average, allowing more firms to afford hiring candidates, would mean less candidates compete for each job, forcing firms to offer more to get them. Instead, government has pumped out so many law graduates, that few get work in industry, and even fewer stay in industry longterm.

Any money paid for an employee is ultimately paid by the customer in the end of the day.

And yet, employees in South Africa so often have an entitlement attitude. The employer is almost seen as owing them reparations for the fact the employer has etched out a better living than the employee. South Africa officially has the worst labour relations in the world, ranking 137th of 137 countries surveyed.

Employers are seen as the bad guy in South Africa. Extensive labour laws, and a conciliation process which are designed to force employers to bend the knee, make hiring any potential new talent a massive risk. South African youth often complain that all the jobs advertised demand years of experience, while they are just out of university or high school. They usually have to get work with jobs not advertised, which nonetheless see many people competing for them. Make it easier to fire an employee, and it is easier for that employee to find another job when fired or retrenched, because employers will take more risk. Make it easier to fire an employee, and you don't need them vetted by past employers, as extensively, to reduce risk. South Africa has such terrible youth unemployment, as it is such a risk to take a chance on an untried youth.

While vaunted by the government, black economic empowerment has also bled the economy dry. Why would whites, who often have the savings, build or expand a firm, if they have to give large portions of it away? How to compete with the international market, when it is illegal to hire the best person for the job? In skilled industries, important jobs just go vacant. South Africa's skilled and university educated population does not adhere to the demographics of the population as a whole, leaving skilled employees who would work hard for a job, locally, unemployed, and employers unable to find workers they can legally hire. Government literally threatening for example UCT with having its accreditation for its LLB (law degree) taken away if it did not pass more black students, and a university industry which does its best to pass the right number of graduates of the right demographics, will not solve this, as making university easier to pass, or easier to pass for some races and not others, negates the value of a university degree as something difficult to get. Students who went to top private schools, are still likely to outcompete students who have government education, if what union controlled government schools do can be called education.

The Pareto Principle and Price's law indicate that a very small portion of a population will always be the most productive. It is why retrenchments at a firm often cause a death spiral. Employees who are worth something, leave, leaving the less productive co-workers behind. There are fascinating graphs showing the South African economy and emigration from South Africa, and the dramatic loss of productivity as the young and skilled take skills they can't use locally, to foreign shores. Why live and work in a country, where your skin colour hurts your future? And why stay in a country, where the economy is going down, because many of the best skilled, and most educated are leaving, and causing the country's economy, which is always something which is based on productivity, to lose steam?

The upcoming expat tax, for another example of South Africa's bizarre treatment of productive people, is likely to cause many South Africans who are testing the waters overseas, to pay the price and financially emigrate, meaning it would be expensive for many of them to return for the five years following that, without paying the South African government quite a bit for a failed financial emigration, thus keeping even more productivity out of the economy.

South Africans overseas, in contrast, have a much vaunted reputation for being hard workers, and highly capable. Why not, though? These are people happy to just have a decent job at decent pay, where they felt they had no or a far lesser future in South Africa. They are also often raised under a capitalist mindset, contrasting the Marxist theories of exploitation that are so pervasive in South Africa, itself.

As long as employers are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and are treated as potential bad guys off the bat, South Africa will continue to lose both its best potential employers, and many of those employees who want to be judged on the merit of their productivity, and how well they personally do their job, to places who value both.

Nothing in this essay constitutes, or in any way should be relied upon as, legal advice. For that, make an appointment with your attorney, disclosing all the nuances of your specific matter to them.

Written by Marc Evan Aupiais.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

A CV isn't an afterthought. It is the thrust of your attempt at employment.

Lawyers are document specialists. If your curriculum vitae is not perfect, you will struggle to get a job at a law firm. A CV isn't an afterthought. It is the thrust of your attempt at employment.

When I was looking for my first job as a candidate attorney, I spent two or three months perfecting my CV, carefully looking for any spelling error, or weakness in the flow or content of my writing, and the formatting of the document. A CV to a law firm should display mastery of written English wording, effective communication, and perfect grammar. Those are your primary tools as an attorney.

I then got out a copy of Horters, and carefully emailed the directors of many firms in my area. Secretaries in law firms often throw the CVs of candidates for jobs, who walk in, in the bin, and delete those sent to them via email. Sending your CV to a secretary is thus usually a bad idea.

Your letter of motivation is likely your most important part of your CV as a new law graduate. You should make a firm want to scoop you up as an asset to them, though by showing, not telling. Listing your subjects later in your CV, (but without your marks,) can also show them you are worthwhile. Unless they are asked for, don't attach transcripts or scans of your ID and degrees. Say they are available on request.

My email had a heading stating what job I was looking for, the email explained a bit about me and my desire for a job at their firm, and then referred to the attached PDF with my letter of motivation, CV and two letters of recommendation inside of it.

I asked that if theirs was not the desk that dealt with human resources that the email be forwarded to that desk. I sent to about a dozen firms a day, until I got interviews at a few firms. Don't CC a hundred firms in your emails, send to each individually. Also, send from a professional email address.

I still got replies to my CV to be a candidate attorney, years later, when I had already qualified and been admitted as an attorney.

Saying a CV is not important, is like saying your particulars of claim or plea are not important. Your documents need to be perfect long before you argue at trial, and your CV must be top notch, so that when it gets you interviews, you are entering an interview, having already made a good impression with your accuracy and good form in document creation.

Advocates may specialise in arguing on court. Attorneys are primarily about the paperwork. If your paperwork, in the form of your application to a firm for a job, is lacking, you have missed your first opportunity to show that you have the skills to do the primary job of an attorney.

Would you rather receive a professional, polite, nicely emailed application from a candidate for a job you need done, or would you rather have a sweaty graduate, in casual wear, walk into your firm, hand your secretary a scrubby, badly drafted document, and say they demand a job? Or, worse, demand to speak to you, taking you away from your work and clients, to demand a job? There is a reason people often prefer email to phone calls, it allows them to go over what is said to them, such as why you would be an asset to their firm, at their own pace, and in comfort. Seeking a job at a law firm is best done by email.

If you want a job in law, foremost is your documentation, in getting one. Email a good CV out to a lot of firms. If you aren't getting replies, then you really do need to spend a few months perfecting your CV.

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Peace and deafening sounds

Article by Marc Evan Aupiais

Have you ever truly wondered who you are, what thoughts are yours, and what is just parroted from others, friends, family, culture.

We are told to ignore our internal critic, the voices of doubt within our own minds. Yet, if we do that merely because others tell us to, we aren't thinking much at all. But what is thinking, really, truly?

I will often sit in my home office, alone, in the dark. I sit here, white noise, or calming music on, and I let my mind wonder. The same can be done in the early hours of the morning before the world awakens or late at night. Solitary, with this entity that is me.

At first, I hear nothing in my thoughts. I am silent, still waves upon an ocean. But dive with the whales and the sharks. Go deeper in, and the stillness on the surface is illusory. Currents and rip tides pull back and forth. It is so noisy, every straining worry rushing within my head, I cannot hear a thing in this deafening cacophony of competing thoughts, concerns.

Like a Great White Shark, the doubts and fears eat into me, but I do not put them out of mind. I sink deeper still. I hear them, I lend my ear to them, to my many concerns. I let myself sink deeper, still. I look with more depth, a deep dive into fear, anguish, concern. I let my mind make its painting of the future. I let my fears flow through me. I let my hopes touch upon the sword of the night, and swim towards the pieces which still remain after the fears and concerns have fed upon a frenzy.

I sink deeper still, and I look at my thoughts in depth, both fears and hopes under the microscope.

I sometimes surprise myself in conversation, whether with my own internal voice or with other people. I will say something I did not know I believed, but upon tearing it apart, I realise I really do believe it, it makes sense to me. It is easy but pointless to deny such nuanced thoughts are the real me, and I find, often, upon expressing them, they make more sense than more defensible positions, and they convince even me.

A defence mechanism of human beings is to truly believe our motives are more noble or more 'rational' than they truly are. A wise man however will not hide from the darker thoughts and resentments within. These are not overcome by suppression, and nor are our fears. We hide who we truly are, even from ourselves, for fear that the true us would become a prey item, or be chased from the village with spears, as a predator. But, however often we vocalise our false narrative within our cranium, the true us knows what we truly believe, and we would become aware of far too many more truths if we listened to it, to truly be able to risk ignoring what we actually, deep down, think.

When I have doubts, I listen, because it is me who is speaking. I softly float upon my doubts and interrogate their substance. I do the same with my hopes, I expose them to the light of my critical internal eye. I discover who I truly am, by observing myself. By seeing my behaviour, how I act, who I am in the wild, and in past scenarios. No matter how noble I may present myself to myself to be, I look at my past and the record within that, and unless something has truly changed since then, I expect I know what I really aim for in life, and oddly enough, my real motivations, what I truly hope for and fear, are far more convincing to myself and others than the noble lie my mind may otherwise make up within me.

As for those thoughts I gain from others, I can look back in my own life to see the terrible destruction many of these have wrought upon me. Ideals and oversimplified lies of the land are not often beneficial. Other thoughts of others, however, I have tested and found true. But we cannot blindly accept the thoughts we think are ours. Most are not original to us. So often I have made a deep and witty observation in my mind, only to hear someone else make it just a few minutes later. Clearly, it is not me who originated that thought, but something else, culture, perhaps. A widely read mind, or one which hears many diverse worldviews, is more likely to hold unique thoughts, as compared one with little exposure, which accepts mere opinions as fact.

I continue to sink into my thoughts, and to softly interrogate them, for the concerns which are truly mine, and upon those, I meditate and pray to my God, and also - to my own subconscious, probing and inquisitive questions, I ask, and find that thoughts emerge within me which I can interrogate. Because I know that the real me is far deeper than the voice and images I produce within my mind. The real me is hidden from me, and it is that which the conscious me desires to truly know and communicate with, and it is that me that is really in charge of my life, and which, in communication with the part I type with now, with that, it often surfaces the thoughts of my mind, and, I interrogate those thoughts, I weigh them, against truth, and the nature of my soul, of my blueprint, as I have observed myself in the history of my own memories, and the recollection of my mind, even that which is less certain, less clear, for that memory which is only subconscious.

And into this, I calmly sink. For who I am is not the vocalisation in my head, that vanity is a product of an over-busy modernity. The true you is a stranger, whom you have a lifetime to interact with and to get to know. But as long as you think you know yourself, you will never set aside the time you need to, to truly build and know your soul.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

I am the rare pro-lifer who opposes abortion in the case of rape.

I am the rare pro-lifer who opposes abortion even in the case of rape. For me it is about principle, I am not allowed to kill someone for being incredibly inconvenient to me or for reminding me of a person or event that has done terrible harm to me.

I also oppose abortion in the case of parents or a mother who is incredibly poor.

I am sure you would not suggest we kill living children in poverty, or that we sterilize the poor so they cannot have any children. The poverty of the modern world is nothing compared to the poverty just twenty years ago, which is nothing compared to the poverty of a few centuries ago.

As global populations have expanded, we have found more resources and become more efficient, with more minds finding solutions to problems, in voluntarism (capitalism).

For every human being that has ever lived, life is full of pain and suffering. But what is the purpose of our ability to feel both, except to keep us alive a little longer?

I want every human being to have what chance it can to live a fulfilled life. I know my life, behind the curtain of appearances, has been full of suffering, like all lives are, but I have meaning in my suffering. And that has made all the difference in my life.

There are people who believe all life is is pain and suffering and that it is therefore better not to have lived than to feel pain. They are called anti-natalists.

They have some fascinating arguments. I recently read one such argument as presented in Quillette. Ultimately, they argue for the eradication of all life in as painless a manner as is possible, as they deem pain, rather than death, to be evil.

I believe pain is a good, as it keeps us from death, longer. e.g. I will not stare at the sun as it would hurt my eyes, and thus, I am not blind.

Eugenics, and the sterilisation of the poor are both also recent events in the West. The poor and the stupid were prevented from having children, or sterilized when they came to hospital to give birth.

The argument was that it was good for society as a whole and would prevent there being more people suffering at the bottom rungs of society. I don't believe that was the effect of sterilisation.

I think many poor people were denied the thing which makes life worthwhile, meaning, by not being able to be parents. Having responsibility for the welfare of another fills life with deep meaning.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

The criticism of Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek, of their debate, is unfounded.

I find the criticism of both Jordan B Peterson and Slavoj Zizek to be unwarranted.

They had a good and enlightening discussion that benefitted everyone. I suspect the alleged former fans didn't know much of either before losing their appreciation of either figure.

Peterson has deep and systematic understanding of communism.

Communism is also not limited to the communist manifesto, which he had read before, and read again in detail before debating Zizek.

Marx wrote a lot more than it, and most of what he wrote, Peterson has a good grasp of.

Zizek prefers works of Marx other than the communist manifesto. Even when I studied him in University, he was not a true communist. He likes some of Marx, and those parts he discusses are actually parts Jordan Peterson has a grasp of, while disagreeing.

I am very impressed with Jordan Peterson's performance in the debate with Slavoj Zizek, and think those who are now attacking him or Zizek over the debate need to re-evaluate their thinking and their fickleness. Displaying fickleness isn't attractive as a trait.

Like those who recently felt the need to disown Stefan Molyneux and claimed his positions had changed (untrue), the rush of new former Jordan B Peterson fans leave me with the impression they had never read a word he has written, nor watched his lectures at all. Virtue signalling.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

The billion euros raised to rebuild Notre Dame would not in any way be better spent 'uplifting the poor'!

I am seeing posts from people who are upset billionaires are donating to restore the incalculable treasure that is Notre Dame. It shows both a complete ignorance of the laws of economics and of there being more to life than food, drink and shelter.

Firstly, this is not money the billionaires were going to donate to charity, they are likely giving up a jet or superyacht to donate. Many of the said billionaires and the like do also donate to charity.

But as study after study has found, throwing money at the poor doesn't solve their poverty, and the same goes for poor nations. Visit a lottery winner five years down the line, and they are as poor as the day they bought the ticket. Visit a hobo who was given 100 000 dollars as part of a documentary experiment, and he has spent it all and is on the street again.

By the same standard, people who inherit a fortune, but not the attitudes which gained it, quickly lose it. Wealth is not some absolute thing, people who don't constantly create wealth don't stay wealthy.

There are ways to end poverty, such as deregulation, getting rid of minimum wages, promoting nuclear families and strengthening marriages and the private health and education sectors. The wealthiest nations got that way by economic freedom (in the real, international sense of the word, not the illiterate garbage treated as such in South Africa). China and India brought almost a billion people out of extreme poverty in just a few decades, by introducing limited capitalism.

And, finally, anyone who thinks all life is about is avoiding poverty and suffering, has a life not worth living. Life is about transcendent meaning, celebration of beauty, and the art and production that can touch a soul. People go to Notre Dame in the millions, in turn contributing to the ability of the French to feed themselves, because seeing the Cathedral can change an entire life's course.

If you want to donate to charity, do so, with the realisation of how incredibly corrupt most NGOs are, and that you probably aren't actually lifting anyone out of poverty. However, don't feel upset with people restoring a symbol of one of the things which helped the first world become the land of milk and honey it is today.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

The exodus of the professional class, and of the rich, all quietly leaving South Africa, has begun

What a lot of legal professionals might not yet understand is that tertiary industries like ours rely heavily on the primary and secondary sectors of the economy to survive. The primary sector is on life support and every day more likely to collapse. The secondary sector of the economy relies upon the primary sector of the economy to survive. The tertiary sector relies on both.

Over the last few years, running a law firm has become more expensive, and, as an industry, our services have often become more of a grudge purchase for clients, a necessary luxury fewer can afford. Many lawyers don't increase their fees with inflation anymore, knowing their clients just can't afford to pay more. But the collapse of each sector becomes more likely as each month fades into the next.

Eskom is keeping the lights on the same way many of you do when the lights go off, with diesel. A lot of us rely on government, whether deeds or masters' offices or courts for much of our livelihood. These rely on some degree of regular power supply.

Then there is the Legal Practice Act which might be regulating industry to death. The plan has also been announced by the powers that be to change the mandate of the Reserve Bank so it can print more money, affecting supply of cash in an economy without enough demand, thus causing further inflation, what Ayn Rand called theft (of citizens' income and savings) by remote control. The state, also, has plans to introduce prescribed assets, forcing pension funds to effectively make loans to it and SOEs which no one else will make. South Africa's government is three trillion in debt and is borrowing two billion rand a day to keep the cogs of state machinery turning. The sands of the hour glass are running ever faster out.

Whether our electricity prices which are at twice international norms, breaking infrastructure, taxation well beyond the Laffer curve, on the verge of collapse water treatment, industry, or the economy itself, something is likely to give. South Africa has the worst in-out investment ratio of any non-tax-haven. South Africans, per the statistics, are moving everything they can offshore, while foreigners just aren't investing in the economy.

Surveys and statistics, as well as anecdotal evidence all find our professional class is leaving our shores. Doctors say they will not stay if NHI passes, but the state continues on with it, and so many are leaving anyway, taking their essential skills with them. A lot of the attorneys I know are leaving, they just haven't announced it officially yet. Many top law firm partners and directors, and advocates are getting jobs as legal secretaries and paralegals overseas. Engineers, per media reports, are leaving the country, due to threats at gunpoint by RET forums at construction sites.

Both Price's Law and the Pareto Principle teach us, from economics, that a tiny proportion of people produce most of what is created in an economy. The ratio is incredibly skewed, with so few hyper-productive individuals creating most of a nation's wealth. This is reflected especially starkly in South Africa where just a few hundred thousand taxpayers pay the vast majority of the tax revenue of the country. When an economy hits an iceberg, those who have means are the first to put on their life jackets and jump to somewhere safer.

A disproportionate percentage of South Africans are employed by the state, and so many survive off of social grants. Yet more survive due to doing business with the state, its employees, and with recipients of social grants. As the private sector loses its most productive citizens, its revenue shrinks, and so does collectable tax. South Africa is so far beyond the Laffer curve, that any further taxation will just shrink tax revenue. As the state's debt and responsibilities continue to increase, the bedrock of private industry it sustains itself upon is heaving under a weight which could soon collapse it.

South Africans as a people have always been robust, and its attorneys have been as well.

Those of us still in the industry are still making enough to make our careers worthwhile.

However, we are sitting on a national timebomb, or rather are within a grid of dozens of bombs. Which will go off first is uncertain, but any one could set off the rest.

Your three to five year plan should probably be open to the possibility of getting your affairs in order, saving up, updating your CV, and considering closing up shop and emigrating to more certain climes, if need be.

Popular Posts - This Week

Popular Posts This Month

Popular Posts | All TIme