The Doctrine of Economic Rationalism: - Another Comprehensive Example Of The Failure Of Its Corrupt Ideology - That Conclusively Defines The Primary Dynamic Of Its Illegitimate Cultural Premise. The sanctity of the reliable delivery of human communication, is no more comprehensively observed, than within regulation developed to acknowledge such spirit of intent, as enshrined within the postal service of ‘snail mail.’ In any Commonwealth nation that observes the legitimacy of the democratic Westminster system of governance and justice, you will find such regulation reflecting such spirit of intent, for the purpose of recognition of the reliable delivery of such human communication. In fact, you will probably find the same recognition within all English speaking nations, if not Western democratic nations. The mail must get through come rain, hail, or shine, is a testament to such spirit of integrity of goodwill, and the competent efficiency developed of such human interaction. …… So you may be justifiably perplexed by the Australian sequence of events defined in the following; The players: [1] A stand alone suburban postal agency - contracted by Australia Post [the national postal service] for the primary purpose of delivering its postal obligations. [2] Australia Post Policy - as defined by its executive management. [3] The Commonwealth Ombudsman - the official authority and arbiter [mediator, referee] of disputes between businesses and companies responsible for discharging official Govt services, and those who come into dispute with such official services. Versus [4] The complainant - in this case, the ‘battler.’ Now, when you are a permanent resident of an Australian home, under Australian law you retain legitimate obligations. One of them is, you are legally obliged to return official mail incorrectly addressed to you, by, returning it to the official distributor [deliverer] of that mail, whether, it be by identifying on that mail if appropriate, “return to sender - address unknown,” and returning it to, for example, an official postal box on the side of the road, or your local official postal centre, etc. In fact, the official national postal agency retains a legal obligation to deliver the mail to the addressee identified on the mail. Similarly, if mail arrives at your address incorrectly, the legal tenant of the address retains a legal obligation to return that mail to the official national postal agency. I am reliably informed by the Office of the Australian Commonwealth Ombudsman, these obligations are defined within Australian law, under Division 471 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. …… Curiously though, ……. If someone decides to use your address as a ‘dumping ground,’ for, mail they don’t want to receive, e.g. from creditors, or other obligations they wish to avoid, according to, the unconscionable [unacceptable, unreasonable] favour they derive from, an identical pattern of policies currently observed of the independent official agencies charged with legal jurisdiction of such mail, which retain, no obligation to act reasonably, responsibly, nor ethically, in cooperating in the same safeguard of your legitimate humanitarian, and lawful rights and entitlements, as that, such identical policies confer upon the addressee of that mail, and themselves, then, currently there is not a damn thing you can do to redress the imbalance of such power of authority? ……. Except actually, …. there is! You see, that you have a parallel legal obligation to safeguard the return of mail incorrectly addressed to your residence, as consistent of, the official postal agency, and its official contractor, both retain, then the legitimacy, of such responsibility shared by those parties, and the tenant of the address such mail is incorrectly addressed to, of both, the delivery, and receiving of that mail, then may be further observed, entirely consistent, as virtually identical, under the spirit of intent of Division 471. …… So how is it, neither; your local suburban postal centre - according to the policy of the national postal agency it contracts to, it is obligated to follow, nor, the national postal agency - according to its executive management policy policy, nor, the Commonwealth Ombudsman - according to its identical dynamic of the policy of the national postal agency, are not, required to responsibly cooperate with you in the protection of your legitimate humanitarian, and lawful rights and entitlements, the same as, they diligently apply to themselves for the protection of their own interests, and the addressee whose mail has been incorrectly addressed to you? The primary dynamic of the issue, clearly defines it an issue of ethical moral hazard. For the potential is observed, of any scam artist who wants to use your address as a dumping ground, for any mail they may wish to divert from their real location, to further, contend you are in on the scam and taking a kickback, and of further potential, you are actually the architect of the scam, …. as circumstantial, ....... pretty convincing on the face of it. For if you have no evidence of officially identifying this issue to those appropriate authorities, or, you have ill advisedly, and illegally, discarded that mail in the garbage, it only takes, a record of evidence somewhere, of the scam artist able to demonstrate, they have, informed one of the senders of that mail, they didn’t receive it [as obviously it has gone to the wrong address - yours], then, the circumstantial potential exists for you being fitted for the frame, if any potential illegal conduct is being practiced by that scam artist, in redirecting their mail …. to you. …… So if you are being inundated by mail for someone that doesn’t live at your address, ……. and while going to collect your mail one day, …… are required to dodge bullets from a drive-by, …… that temporarily stops to pull a small bulky letter protruding from your letterbox, …… that you can sheepishly make out on the back of that envelope, …… identifies the sender the current successor to the Silk Road, …… you may, for example, …… be motivated to work out what’s going on, …… or alternatively, your adolescent offspring may have some interesting explaining to do? ….. Just winding you up doubleclutchers, …… but these dynamics demonstrate a case study I have become aware of, where; a previous tenant of an address decided to continue using that address for avoiding mail from their pursuit of ‘doctor shopping,’ and other petty conduct, where, the new tenant of that address, after being inundated with mail for that previous tenant for a few years, finally, became exasperated with returning that mail, when the previous tenant obviously decided it was such a reliable scam, they started passing the address around to their mates. When that existing tenant approached their local postal centre for assistance to put an end to the racket, they were advised by that postal centre, as an official contractor for the national postal agency, they were unable to assist, that, the national policy [as consistent with its legal liability], was to deliver the mail to the address identified on it. When that existing tenant requested a receipt for the mail they were returning as addressed incorrectly to their residence, that, they may keep a record of the volume of mail they were receiving for the former tenant …… and his mates, ….. they were advised, it wasn’t the policy of the national postal agency to give receipts for such misdirected mail returns. The existing tenant realising the burden of potential legal liability upon them, and, the imbalance of that liability they were enforced to bear, that, of obvious scrutiny, both the national postal agency, and themselves, retained equivalent legal responsibility for the safeguard of that mail while it remained in transit [until it was delivered to the rightful addressee], that existing tenant, raised the issue with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, defining the weight of its responsibility in the matter, that of a mediator ONLY, advised the existing tenant, it had decided not to investigate the matter until the existing tenant had made a formal submission to the national postal agency? Therein that decision, lies a gross conflict of interest, for, once a detailed submission has been tendered to the national postal agency by the existing tenant, ..... that the national postal agency may first, .....effectively investigate itself, ...... further investigation by the Ombudsman after such due process it has determined has occurred, by, is for all intents and purposes, entirely obsolete, for, the national postal agency has the full details of the issue, that it may then potentially, potential manipulate its responses to any subsequent investigation of the Ombudsman, realising, the finding of the Ombudsman entirely consistent with the policy of the national postal agency. …… The zero sum game ….. a hallmark of the practice of economic rationalism. However, that the existing tenant does not retain the resources, for example, of a mining magnate, a BHP, Rio Tinto, Monsanto, or a Fonterra, and the policy of, [1] their local stand alone suburban postal agency, is the same policy as, [2] the national postal agency [1] is contracted to, and, [3] the policy of the Ombudsman, as all, identical of their primary dynamic of looking after their own interests first and last, and to hell with the legitimate rights of the existing tenant who is open to the major impacts of these events and policy practices, and, coincidentally protect the interests of the scam artist diverting their mail to the wrong address, there is, legitimate grounds for a complaint of discrimination by the existing tenant, as defined by, the identical dynamic policy determination of all 3 agencies, which retain official jurisdiction over the legal status of the mail in question, and, the obvious misuse of the superior market power of those agencies, as, imposing upon the legitimate humanitarian, and lawful rights and entitlements of the existing tenant, as defined by, the current law that succeeded the Australian Trade Practices Act. ……. Of course, the Australian Human Rights Commission were not initially interested in the issue raised by the existing tenant either, …… that is, ……. until their fallback plan was revealed, ……. of whistleblowing the issue to the media! …… Yep, there’s nothing like the human interest story of a battler being menaced by a bunch of bureaucratic thugs, to raise media publishing circulation. …… My money’s on whatever finding the Human Rights Commission hands down, ….. the existing tenant getting a receipt the next time they request one from their local suburban postal centre, …. for mail addressed to the existing tenant incorrectly. The moral hazard of the doctrine of economic rationalism …… another fail! …… Notice the consistent pattern of failure here? …… So you are bringing your kids up in this dysfunctional mayhem? …… Really? …… .
Posted on: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:42:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015