Saturday, December 7, 2024

Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

Home Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

The Problem with the Police

Virtually all political persuasions agree on the need for police. For libertarians, maintaining a criminal justice system, of which the police are a major component, is viewed as one of the few legitimate roles of government. 

The first modern and professional police force was the London Metropolitan Police Service, established in 1829. At the time there was substantial public opposition to a large and possibly armed police force, based on fears it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule. The example of France, which had secret police at the time, was significant. 

The Met was established by Robert Peel, Britain’s Home Secretary, who set out to address these concerns via his nine principles of policing. These principles are now famous and remain the gold standard for police everywhere. 

Peel believed that the power of the police was dependent on public approval and derived from public cooperation rather than fear. Also known as policing by consent, his key principle was that “the police are the public and the public are the police”. 

Corrupt and thuggish police must be rooted out and the selective enforcement of laws based on political allegiances prohibited

He ensured police uniforms were different from the military, avoided military ranks, and only armed officers with a wooden truncheon and rattle (later a whistle) to signal the need for assistance. Every officer was issued a warrant card with a unique identification number to assure accountability for his actions, and Londoners were expected to give assistance, including loaning their revolvers to officers in pursuit of armed felons. Many did exactly that. 

Peel was also clear about the primary role of the police – to prevent crime. Police effectiveness is not measured by the number of arrests, he said, but by the absence of crime and disorder.

Almost two hundred years later, police in many locations could benefit from a reminder of Peel’s principles. 

One issue is the steady militarisation of the police. This ranges from references to the public as civilians and assertions that the police place their lives on the line every day (which is obvious garbage) to black uniforms, military assault rifles and ex-military equipment such as armoured personnel carriers. 

When they see themselves as soldiers in a war, it is not surprising that some police have no regard for public welfare. The result is the abuse of civil rights and the unnecessary use of tasers and firearms, with deaths in police custody. 

Peel’s principles also stipulate that police should only use physical force when persuasion, advice and warning are insufficient, to use only the minimum force necessary, and that the cooperation of the public diminishes proportionately with the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion.

For libertarians, maintaining a criminal justice system, of which the police are a major component, is viewed as one of the few legitimate roles of government.

Yet how often do we see police resort to violence when making an arrest? People are tackled, forced to the ground with knees on their back and neck amid blows, kicks and the vindictive use of Tasers, simply to apply handcuffs. Being ‘non-compliant’ or raising verbal objections is enough to prompt this. 

Moreover, such rough handling amounts to a form of punishment. That is also in conflict with Peel’s Principles, which require the police to avoid usurping the powers of the judiciary by authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

Enforcement of the Covid rules, including the authoritarian decrees and fines imposed by state premiers, provided multiple examples of poor policing: the petty closing of cafes, prosecutions for reading in a park, chasing individuals along a closed beach, stopping fishing from a pier the day after 10,000 gathered in a demonstration, and even a Police Commissioner who denounces the cruise industry as criminal, are among them. 

We now see the police routinely looking the other way when demonstrators spew their hateful antisemitism and calls for genocide against the Jews, even arresting a solitary Jewish observer. The Australian public are never likely to accept the police as one of them while those sorts of things occur.

Change is necessary. Corrupt and thuggish police must be rooted out and the selective enforcement of laws based on political allegiances prohibited. Victimless crimes should never be given priority and arresting people should be the last resort for problems that originate in drug use, alcoholism, mental illness and poverty. 

The fundamental responsibility of governments is to protect life, liberty and property. If the police were to focus on these while upholding Peel’s Principles, Australians might even respect them enough to come to their aid. As it stands, many would refuse.

Bacon Sandwiches, Sausage Sizzles and Red Tape

On Saturday the 5th of October 2024, a friend and I were visiting Melbourne when we decided to attend an anti ACMA bill protest being held on that day. Upon arrival, I noticed a sausage sizzle but was disappointed to find there were no bacon sandwiches, just sausages in bread.

Later I went up to the stall to suggest they add bacon sandwiches to their next sausage sizzle. I was informed that bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events, with the bacon sandwich permit being more difficult to obtain.

I walked away feeling slightly annoyed that I could not buy a bacon sandwich because of some stupid government rule. It may not be the worst of government transgressions, but it is certainly a great example of regulations and red tape having an inconvenient effect on everyday life. 

Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question

Upon returning to my home city of Adelaide, I decided to contact a range of councils in South Australia and the rest of Australia to see how common it is to require separate permits to sell sausages and bacon sandwiches. I contacted all the councils below on the 8th of October 2024.

Below is the following enquiry I sent them: 

“Hello,

I was just wondering, if I were to organise a community event or help organise a community event such as a community footy game or even a protest, would I require separate permits to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches at a stand or would I be able to sell both sausages in bread and bacon sandwiches on the same permit? 

Thank you  

Jessica Colby.”

Although some council bureaucrats responded to my question in a manner that easily answered my question, some did not, and some were even unsure whether bacon or sausage sandwiches could be sold under the same permit as if this was an extremely difficult question.

Many responded mentioning event permits. I would reply to these emails asking whether I would be able to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread under the same permit or would I require separate permits. Some did eventually answer my question although that wasn’t always the case. 

Some gave answers that were confusing and even contradictory. A few would direct me to other people or tell me to contact some government health organisation and say they were unsure. A few insisted on speaking on the phone rather than email and one even told me to contact some other authority about getting other permits before they would further discuss my question.

I believe that this example illustrates how red tape unnecessarily restricts our everyday lives and makes things that should be simple more complicated than they need to be. Explaining how government overreach affects our lives at the daily level is a great way to mobilise the community against government overreach. 

Below I have created a chart of council areas in South Australia and around Australia showing my attempts to interpret the responses I received from council bureaucrats as of the 18th of October 2024. 

Yes: Separate permits required to sell bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread.

Bacon sandwiches required separate permits to sell at community events

No: Bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread can be sold under the same permit.

Inc: This covers a range of responses including an unclear answer, or I found confusing, no clear response or I was directed to someone else. This also includes responses where I asked them to clarify their response, and was still waiting on a further response as of the 18th of October 2024.

NR: No response as of the 18th of October 2024 other than automated replies and updates that my enquiry was being transferred to some other council representative to answer it.

N/A: Turns out Sydney does not permit food to be sold at community events or protests. 

Council AreaStateSeparate permit required to serve bacon sandwiches and sausages in breadNotes
City of Adelaide SAInc
City of BurnsideSANoMust be under same marque or kitchen to use same permit to be covered under same notification
City of CampbeltownSAIncTold to contact Eastern Health Authority
City of Charles SturtSAIncLikely yes
Town of GawlerSANo
Town of WalkervilleSANR
Adelaide Hills CouncilSAIncGiven a list of people to contact
City of MarionSANo
City of MitchamSAIncLikely yes but not 100% sure
City of Norwood, Payneham & St PetersSANR
City of OnkaparingaSANo
City of PlayfordSAInc
City of ProspectSAInc
City of SalisburySANo
City of Tea Tree GullySANo
City of UnleySANo
City of West TorrensSANo
Mid Murrey CouncilSANo
City of Port AugustaSANo
City of Port LincolnSANo
Flinders Ranges CouncilSANo
District Council of Mount BarkerSANoAs long as all the food sold at the stall is listed on the one application form, only one permit will be required for all.
Berri Barmera CouncilSANR
District Council of Loxton WaikerieSANR
District Council of GrantSANR
Roxby CouncilSANoNeed FBN number
City of HobartTASNo
Tasman CouncilTASNo
North Canberra Community CouncilACTIncTold to contact Access Canberra
City of DarwinNTIncTold to contact Northern Territory Health Department
Alice Springs Town CouncilNTIncWas told to contact NTG Health as the council officer was unsure on the specifics of whether both can be cooked under the same permit.
City of PerthWANR
City of BunburyWANo
City of Greater GeraldtonWANo
City of RockinghamWANoSausage sizzles need one permit that includes both bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread
Shire of BroomeWANo
Brisbane City CouncilQLDNo
Sunshine Coast CouncilQLDNR
Cairnes Regional CouncilQLDNR
City of TownsvilleQLDNoNeed a separate permit for every separate food stand
City of MelbourneVICYes
Yarra City CouncilVICNo
Maribyrnong City CouncilVICYes
Whitehorse City CouncilVICNR
City of Greater GeelongVICNR
City of Greater BendigoVICNo
West Wimmera Shire CouncilVICYes

Mildura Rural City CouncilVICNR
City of SydneyNSWN/AFood cannot be sold be sold at community events or protests in Sydney
Georges River CouncilNSWInc
Waverly CouncilNSWInc
City of Wagga WaggaNSWNo
Broken Hill City CouncilNSWNo
City of WollongongNSWNo
Dubbo Regional CouncilNSWIncWas told in the final email that ‘there is no such thing as a permit’ ???

I’ve got a little list

In Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera The Mikado, the character Ko-Ko is appointed to the position of Lord High Executioner. He prepares a list of people to be executed, singing: “I’ve got a little list. They’d really not be missed.”

I’ve often thought this should be the way we deal with those responsible for Australia’s tragic response to the Covid hysteria. I have a list, and I really don’t believe those on it would be missed. The question is, is it more than a fantasy? 

A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account. Royal Commissions certainly have broad investigative powers, but they cannot decide guilt or innocence. They can only make recommendations. 

A Royal Commission is only as good as its terms of reference, which are written by the government. There is an unwritten rule on that – only establish an inquiry when the outcome is either already known or won’t do great harm to the government.  

There is also a problem with jurisdiction. A Commission established by the Commonwealth is limited to investigating federal issues. That would include international border closures, repatriating Australians, vaccine ordering, the vaccine rollout, use of troops, and the advice of the Commonwealth Health Officer and health agencies. It could also look at what the federal government failed to do, such as follow its own pandemic plan or challenge the states’ border closures. 

Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity?

It would require a state-initiated Royal Commission to investigate the policies and actions of state governments. That includes the medical advice to justify state border closures, compulsory masks, curfews, lockdowns, other movement restrictions, the Covid zero fantasy, the separation of families, business closures, mandatory vaccination, and of course vaccine certificates. 

Only a state Royal Commission could consider whether the loss of basic rights such as free speech, freedom of religion and the right to peaceful protest, or the suspension of parliament, were reasonable and proportionate. And unless the terms of reference were specific, the behaviour of state police would not be considered. 

There is also a question of competence. Commissioners are generally retired judges; that is, elderly lawyers. A career as a barrister and judge is not necessarily a sound qualification for investigating complex non-legal issues. From my observation such people mostly don’t understand business or economics, and expecting them to come to grips with epidemiology and immunology might be optimistic. Add the possibility that they will overestimate the risk given their personal vulnerability to Covid, and an objective review is far from certain.  

But let’s assume, for the sake of the fantasy, that a Royal Commission with broad terms of reference was established that is brave, competent, and thorough. Let’s even assume it is a joint federal-state commission. What might it achieve? 

In my fantasy, it would name those responsible for doing so much damage to our liberal democracy, and spell out the crimes they committed. The patronising, sanctimonious, unscientific Chief Health Officers. The cynical, manipulative political leaders. The lying propagandists and political boosters. The cowardly, craven media. The senior police who sanctioned brutal repression of protests.  

It would also offer a strong reminder of the fundamentals of a free society: that freedom and safety are not interchangeable; that personal responsibility should always trump government control; that avoiding deaths at any cost is not the role of the government; that executive government must be accountable to parliament.  And perhaps most importantly, that those who violate these principles must pay a price. 

A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account.

Notwithstanding some indications to the contrary, particularly in Victoria, Australia is still subject to the rule of law.  An adverse mention by a Royal Commission might end a political or bureaucratic career, but it is not a conviction. And the reality is that virtually everything inflicted on Australians in the name of controlling Covid occurred within the law. Other than a few Victorian police perhaps, none of those named would be at risk of going to jail.

Some say this calls for a special tribunal, like that used to try senior Nazis at Nuremburg. This applied the principle that some things can never be legal or right, whether or not they were within the law at the time. That same concept underpins the International Criminal Court. 

Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity? No doubt they inflicted needless suffering and misery on millions of their fellow Australians, imposing irrational and arbitrary rules with heartless brutality. And while they claim to have saved deaths from Covid, they contributed to others from suicide and untreated conditions, and caused profound harm to countless careers, businesses, marriages, and childhoods. 

The crimes that the International Criminal Court may consider are genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. The world’s longest lockdown certainly felt like a crime against humanity to Victorians, and it would be satisfying to hear the former Premier and Chief Health Officer argue, in their defence, why family visits were prohibited but not visiting brothels; why council gardeners could work but not private gardeners; and why the Black Lives Matter protest was not a superspreader event unlike anti-lockdown protests and watching a sunset from the beach. 

But that’s where the fantasy ends. A Nuremburg-style trial, even if it is warranted, would require special legislation. And a Royal Commission, even if established, is not likely to do no more than offer half-baked recommendations about preparing for the next pandemic. 

Perhaps even worse, the pandemic showed that the commitment of Australians to democracy and freedom is wafer thin. They readily relinquished their rights and freedoms based on fear of a disease with a survival rate of 98 per cent, in the belief that the government would keep them safe.  

This is a problem that will not be solved by a Royal Commission or Nuremburg type tribunal. Indeed, it would not be solved by making me Lord High Executioner and allowing me to deal with those on my list. It is a reflection of who we are as a nation.

Know Thy Enemy

We all love to hate politicians, understandably so, and the last thing I want to do is advocate that we start treating politicians nicer. But it is important to identify the true threat to liberty.

STARRY-EYED BEGINNINGS

Whether we agree with them ideologically or not, it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community. While there certainly are some that are drawn to the power and prestige that politics can bring, these are a minority.

Most politicians fall into one of two camps: fed-up professionals or lifelong activists who perceive an issue they genuinely feel needs redress. While we may disagree with the catalyst that ignited their passion or the solutions they prescribe, it is difficult to disagree with the sincerity of their conviction. Most of us who are politically active have felt this way before.

Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

THE DEEP STATE

The biggest threat to liberty is something that has existed as long as government, but has grown exponentially over the last half century. It has gone by many names, recently portrayed in shadowy terms with conspiratorial overtones. 

While the preferred modern verbiage is “the deep state”, it is nothing more than the faceless bureaucrats who comprise the ever-expanding three- and four-letter agencies of the executive government.

Western democracies, particularly those with Anglophonic origins, typically separate government into three arms: the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. The legislature, or parliament in Australia, is the part of government most of us think of whenever that unfortunate thought enters our mind – the part that democracy makes accountable to the people. The judiciary consists of judges and courts – the determiners of fault. While the executive government is far more nebulous and ambiguously defined – often referred to as “the enforcer”.

THE EXECUTIVES

The most obvious example of the executive government is the police: they enforce the laws that parliament creates, purportedly regardless of their view on such laws, and bring alleged offenders before the courts where fault is determined. Or at least, this is how it is supposed to operate. While I am sure there are still plenty of police officers enforcing laws they don’t agree with, police departments have included the additional function of political lobbying in the last few decades – and this is only increasing.

It wasn’t that long ago that most police departments were made of willing and capable men who were simply looking out for their community – much like the starry-eyed politicians mentioned earlier – often on a voluntary or part-time basis. 

 it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community. 

Now all police departments are highly formalised, employing many thousands of full-time officers, that regularly pressure the government to introduce ill-conceived laws for the primary purpose of making their jobs easier and safer. And while I wish no harm on our police, separating powers means the enforcement arm should not influence the law-making arm.

BLURRED LINES

Police are not even the most egregious offender. How about the Commonwealth Department of Education? It employed nearly 125,000 people in 2022, not one of whom taught a single student; all of them effectively lobbyists or busybodies; all of them pressuring the government to implement their agenda or enforcing compliance against teachers – you know, the ones who actually teach students – who dared not adopt their curriculum, whether deliberate or inadvertent.

The executive comprises the vast majority of the totality of government: the few hundred people we elect and their staff are effectively a rounding error. And as government grows, it is entirely within the executive government. Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

TYRANNICAL ENDINGS

And it is this growth that makes our starry-eyed politician almost doomed to fail.

Government is so big it is near impossible for politicians to have sufficient knowledge, no matter how well intentioned. So they turn to the bureaucrats, who face no public accountability and often spend decades in their cushy jobs, who spoon feed them their agenda.
Even if our starry-eyed politician has some hesitation, he shrugs his shoulders and tells himself: well, I guess he’s the expert.

How much should we pay our pollies?

Among the many criticisms of politicians that I heard during my time as a Senator, the accusation that they are only in it for the pay and perks, looking after themselves rather than the country and voters, was one of the most common. 

Sometimes this arose from dissatisfaction with certain politicians, but more often it reflected disdain for them all. Many Australians are convinced politicians are paid far more than they are worth. 

I am inclined to agree. 

This prompts the question – should politicians be paid at all? Should we treat parliamentary service as a career, as we do now, or as a form of public service necessitating an element of sacrifice? And if politicians are to be paid, what is an appropriate amount? 

Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election

In democracy’s ancient home, Athens, eligible citizens all had a civic duty to participate in the governing assembly. There was no salary, although in the 5th century BC an attendance fee was introduced as an incentive. 

In the British parliament, on which our democracy is based, service in the House of Commons was unpaid until 1911. Members of the House of Lords, who are mostly appointed, are still unpaid unless they hold an official position. They can claim an attendance allowance plus limited travel expenses, although many do not bother. 

Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service. In New Hampshire, for example, state legislators are paid just $200 for their two-year term plus mileage. In Maine, Kansas, Wyoming and New Mexico, state politicians are paid less than what Australian local government councillors receive. 

It’s different for heads of government, most of whom are well paid. Top of the list is the prime minister of Singapore, at more than a million dollars and over five times the pay of ordinary MPs. By comparison Australia is rather egalitarian; our government leaders are only paid about double what ordinary politicians receive. 

But it is the pay of ordinary politicians that agitates people, and on that Australia is generous. A backbench member of the Federal Parliament receives a package (i.e. salary, allowances and superannuation) of at least $280,000. State politicians’ salaries tend to be only slightly lower. 

This is far more than what most of them earned before getting elected and, more importantly, is much more than what they could earn if they lost their seat. This has a powerful effect on their behaviour. 

Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election. In the case of New Hampshire, around half the members of the legislature are retired, with an average age of 58. 

Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service.

Perhaps it is reasonable they be paid something. Being a senator can be extremely busy, as I found. There are not only long days in Canberra but also committee hearings and an endless stream of people seeking help. Most politicians treat it as a full-time job and their salary is their sole source of income. 

But that need not be the case. While the workload for key ministers is typically substantial, ordinary MPs have considerable time-flexibility. Indeed, some undertake additional study or write a book, while a few maintain a professional interest (such as doctors) or remain involved in an outside business (as I did). 

More to the point, a great deal of the activity of politicians is designed to help them get re-elected. Being paid a handsome salary with generous expenses while doing this gives them a significant advantage over their unelected competitors. 

The reason for entering politics ought to be service to the country rather than a lucrative professional career. It should attract people who have achieved more than navigated their way through a party, worked for existing politicians, and manipulated numbers to gain preselection. Politicians should also have a life outside politics that ensures they are not desperate to be re-elected. 

It is difficult to see how political service is substantially any different from serving on the board of a charity or other non-profit organisation, for which there is reimbursement of expenses and possibly an attendance fee. It should ideally be no better paid than any other job an incumbent is likely to achieve. 

And, of course, service in politics should be viewed as a temporary role that will end. And when it does, there should be something to go back to. 

Resisting Centralist Power – Part 1

In 1901, when six individual British colonies came together as a federation, it was in an environment of extensive and, at times, torrid debate. While there was widespread acceptance that the colonies could achieve together what they could not achieve alone, there was also apprehension about the extent to which the power to govern would become centralised.

The enthusiasm and sense of expectation surrounding the birth of a nation was tempered by concerns about the future autonomy of individual colonies. The smaller colonies were also apprehensive about the power and influence the larger colonies might exercise.

As a consequence, the process leading to the formation of the Australian Constitution was both painstaking and torturous.

One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

During the first of the convention debates in 1891, Sir Samuel Griffith, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, captured the essence of concerns saying:

“We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.”

In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.” It is clear, both from the Constitution and from the record of the Convention debates, that the Federal government was to have significant but well-defined powers. All powers not defined in the Constitution, known as the residual powers, were to remain the province of the States. However, the ink was barely dry on the Constitution before a growing appetite for centralised power emerged.

Foundations of Power

The powers of the Commonwealth were set out in Section 51 of the Constitution, and their scope described in 39 subsections known as a head of power. While the States retained the right to legislate on these matters as well, the Constitution provided that where any inconsistency existed between Federal and State legislation, the Federal legislation prevailed.

The powers ceded to the Federal government were very wide and included interstate trade and commerce, corporations, external affairs, taxation, defence, quarantine, currency, pensions, banking and many more.

Centralisation of Power

As one might expect, the first issue on which the boundaries of authority between the States and Commonwealth were tested related to tax, with the High Court becoming the arena for argument. The gloves came off, the lawyers were primed, and the fight over money began.

The first tests came in 1904 in Peterwald v Bartley where the High Court examined whether the Constitution prohibited the States from imposing excise duty. This was followed the same year with D’Emden v Pedder, in which the power of the States to impose taxes on Commonwealth activities was rejected. 

In 1908, in response to the Constitutional requirement that any surplus tax revenues in the first decade of Federation be returned to the States, the Commonwealth enacted legislation to pay these surpluses into a trust account thereby avoiding payment to the States. One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

In 1910, the Constitutional obligation that not less than 75 per cent of the Commonwealth’s customs and excise revenue be distributed to the States came to an end. While the arrangement was mandated for only the first decade of Federation, the Commonwealth terminated the arrangement as soon as it was legally able to do so, much to the ire of the States.

In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.”

Commonwealth government activity and bureaucracy then began to grow rapidly, fed by its growing tax harvest. The years leading up to World War 1 (1910-1914) saw increases in Commonwealth control of the economy and in social services. In 1915, following the entry of Australia into the war, the Commonwealth introduced income tax which co-existed with income tax applied by the States.

Over the next few decades, both in the High Court and through legislation, the Commonwealth and States battled for territory in a number of areas including tax, defence and welfare services. So extreme was the discontent with the way the federation was heading that some States, most notably Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, contemplated secession. In 1933 a referendum was held in Western Australia.

At the time there was a Great Depression and every State was struggling. Some believed the problems were a result of Federal government policies and actions, particularly in respect of tariffs imposed to protect the manufacturing and sugar industries.

The result of the WA referendum sent shock waves through the rest of Australia with 68% of West Australians voting in favour of secession. This was about the same number who had voted to join the Federation only 33 years earlier. The desire of West Australians to separate from the Federation was not fulfilled as the British Imperial Parliament refused to act, claiming that such an action could only be taken with the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

Libertarianism is an Ideology, But Not a World View

Libertarianism is an ideology, but not a world view, according to a distinction offered by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action. A world view, Mises explains, is “an interpretation of all things,” “an explanation of all phenomena.” In short, world views “interpret the universe.” Ideology, by contrast, is a narrower concept comprising “the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations.” Ideologies are concerned solely with human action as it manifests in social cooperation. Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

Mises observes that world views and ideologies both share a normative outlook. They do not purport merely to describe the way things are, but offer a perspective on the way things ought to be. What distinguishes a world view from an ideology is scope. Where world views have broad and diverse, even cosmic, interests and concerns, ideologies have limited interests and concerns, specifically centred around the nature, shape and fate of society. This narrower focus on society naturally lends ideologies to political action, whether in the form of party organisation, reform, lobbying, protest or rebellion, because political power is a significant lever for affecting the shape of society.

As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism

World views, on the other hand, because of the breadth of their concern and the extent of the phenomena they purport to explain, encompass wholistic outlooks on life. They can encompass anything from stories about the creation of the universe to dietary habits, as many religions do. Their breadth of perspective is such that they can and do incorporate and integrate views about society and politics. However, this breadth does not necessitate the action-oriented social focus of ideologies. The religious ascetic is a case in point. The ascetic withdraws entirely from society as a means of dedicating themselves completely to their world view. 

Because ideologies, on Mises’s account, are only concerned with human action and social cooperation, they tend to “disregard the problems of metaphysics, religious dogma, the natural sciences and the technologies derived from them.” This seems to overlook the capacity of at least some religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to involve themselves with social and political concerns. It also overlooks, or perhaps underestimated (Mises was born in 1881 and died in 1973), the way that science has more recently proved itself capable of morphing into political ideology. Still, it is undeniable that all three Abrahamic faiths constitute world views on the Misesian definition. Each has generated traditions and practices that avoid, shun or repudiate political action, proving that they are capable of existing as non-ideological world views. In the case of libertarianism, on the other hand, the Misesian distinction between world view and ideology is helpful in clarifying that it is very much an ideology, as distinct from a world view. 

Libertarianism is concerned exclusively with society, particularly the way it is organised and governed. It possesses neither a cosmogony, nor a cosmology, distinguishing it from classical, if controversial, definitions of religion. Libertarians can, of course, mirror some of the attributes of religious adherents in their zeal, proselytising and uncompromising commitment to dogma. However, this does not make libertarianism a world view per se, nor the most ardent libertarian fanatic the adherent of a libertarian world view. 

The truth of the matter is that libertarianism is agnostic on the fundamental questions of existence that animate religions and philosophies, and which are therefore essential to world views. These are questions best left to the conscience of individuals, as far as libertarians are concerned. Moreover, the libertarian program does not hinge on any particular answer to them. Mises, an agnostic Jew, exemplified this principle in his own life. He thought it was futile to speculate about the given facts of the universe. Instead, he was interested in analysing and understanding human action within the given parameters of existence: the means individuals employ to attain their chosen ends. He thought there was no point evaluating the ends as these were inherently a matter of subjective choice.

Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

Means, on the other hand, could be analysed objectively and evaluated concretely in terms of success and failure, i.e., an assessment of whether the chosen means realised the ends they were employed to attain. He thought the majority of political ideologies ultimately aspired to the same ends, including liberalism and socialism, namely human prosperity and wellbeing. Where they differed, and in very consequential ways, was means. Mises took little issue with the aspirational ends of socialism. He simply, and accurately, predicted that the means employed—common ownership over the means of production—would lead to the opposite outcome from that intended. Liberalism, on the other hand, in the 19th century classical European sense of the term, was in Mises’s view the only objective means of attaining the ends of human prosperity and wellbeing. By liberalism, Mises meant a social organisation that maximised individual freedom to purse personally chosen ends and means, with a minimal government in the background protecting individuals from aggression, fraud and infringement against their property rights. 

Mises typified the world view agnosticism that is characteristic of libertarianism today. He was as uncompromising a defender of individual freedoms, private property and free markets as anyone (famously so). But he was genuinely open and agnostic on the great existential questions that occupy the human mind and heart. The stridency of his views about social and political means was matched by a tolerance for all manner of diverse world views, at least as their teaching pertained to the origin and nature of the universe, and the myriad ends that humans are free to pursue. 

The world view flexibility of libertarianism is evident today in the way that it is embraced by religious believers and atheists alike, not to mention agnostics like Mises. As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism. It is possible for individuals with clashing and mutually incompatible world views (Christians and atheists, for example) to unite around the cause of a libertarian ideology. World view pluralism is simply the by-product of the libertarian ideological commitment to a social order that permits individuals to pursue their own diverse ends. The freedoms libertarians wish to secure and safeguard for all individuals to develop their own world views is one of the unheralded virtues of their ideology.

Got something to say?

Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

More Political Competition

According to Treasurer Jim Chalmers, increasing competition among supermarket giants will help deliver lower grocery prices: “If it is more competitive, more transparent and people are getting a fair go, better outcomes will be seen at the supermarket checkout“.  

The ACCC also notes that competition encourages innovation.  

But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes: the former through lower prices and better quality, and the latter through lower taxes and better services.

And just as those in the commercial sector prefer less competition, so too do the players in the political sector; the dominant political parties frequently colluding to modify electoral laws to defend their incumbency.  

The Albanese government, while pursuing a business competition reform agenda, is also surreptitiously running an electoral reform agenda which will have the opposite effect, reducing political competition.

Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”

In his 1776 magnum opus The Wealth of Nations, the father of economics Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

This quote is often used to describe the potential for anti-competitive behaviour within business.  However, with politics now more of a trade than a calling, Smith’s description equally applies to our elected class—a group that regularly meets, often for merriment, in a well-appointed building, to conspire against the Australian public.

While Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh pursue new competition law amendments claimed to “make our economy more productive, more dynamic, and more competitive”, Special Minister of State Don Farrell is developing plans to make it more difficult for small parties and independent candidates to compete in the political marketplace.  Farrell even recently stated that “the Westminster system provides for a two-party operation.”  A duopoly that is.

Recently also South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas proposed to ban electoral donations.  Were such a reform implemented, it would further privilege and embed the major parties by making it exceptionally difficult for new parties to emerge.  Raised barriers to entry lead to reduced competition.

Political parties are exempted from many important laws including privacy and the proposed mis- and dis- information laws.  This makes their perpetual assault on political competition and concentration of political power even more nefarious.

At a time of declining support for the major parties as measured by first preference voting and polling, the major parties continue to work together to maintain their political duopoly.

Although the latest electoral proposals are being driven by a Labor Government, the Coalition also has dirty hands.  In 2021, the Coalition government passed laws, with Labor’s support, to shorten pre-polling periods and force the deregistration of some minor parties.  As part of this the major parties confiscated the words “liberal” and “labor” from the political lexicon, perpetually vesting these terms in themselves.

Even Gough Whitlam’s grand dream of fixed four-year electoral terms has received bipartisan support with both John Howard and Peter Dutton offering endorsement. Extended terms transfer power from the people to the elected with no recourse, such as binding citizen-initiated referenda (as occur in Switzerland) or recall elections (as occur in the US).

It was not always thus.  Over recent years, our neo-professional political class has increasingly and incrementally colluded to raise the barriers to entry for alternative parties and candidates.  This has contributed to a homogenization of personnel and policy, making the differences between the average Labor and Coalition candidate barely discernible to the average voter.

For all the talk of diversity, this homogenization has led to much reduced experiential, cognitive and policy differentiation among politicians.  Many members of our parliaments, irrespective of party, gender, race, sexual preference or religion, follow similar educational and pre-parliamentary career paths.  While elected governments may change, there is a consistent trajectory of permanent government expansion and price rises through ever higher taxes.

Since the turn of the millennium, it has been bipartisan policy and practice to increase spending, taxes, and the volume of regulations to ever greater levels.  The assaults on civil liberties and the crowding out of civil society similarly continue unabated.

But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes

It is not just a reduction of competition at the political level.  There has been a long-term de-federalisation project to aggregate power in Canberra; a manifestation of the French “disease” described by Alexis de Tocqueville as the tendency to concentrate authority in central government; something Tocqueville believed to be detrimental to political and social health.

Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”, a term coined by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.  Death duties in Australia were abolished not through some fiat from Canberra but because of competition between the states and territories.

However, today some 81 percent of total tax revenue is collected by the Commonwealth, leading to policy centralisation and standardisation.  Matters constitutionally the provenance of the states, such as health and education, are now increasingly directed out of Canberra; fidelity to the intent of the Australian constitution and of tax and policy competition be damned.  

Just recently, the United States celebrated 248 years of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, it included this famous sentence: “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

Just as politics is downstream from culture, policy is downstream from politics.  It’s time to change the way politics is done in Australia.

“Fight!”

In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, mainstream media urged us all to “cool the temperature” of political discourse. 

While I am all for a more civil political discourse, forgive me if I find it a bit rich coming from the same media that has spent the best part of a decade calling the man “literally Hitler” and “the greatest threat to democracy”.

COOLER HEADS

The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position, because any call to “cool the temperature” amounts to a tacit admission regarding the unending hyperbole they have been spewing since Trump rode down that escalator in 2015. Because if Trump is “literally Hitler” then his assassination should be the ethical duty of any good citizen who wishes to prevent tyranny. If Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy”, the only reason we should all be upset is because the would-be assassin missed.

Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature

The logically consistent position of the left can only be one of dismay and frustration at the inaccuracy of the shot. In fact, the other guy (not Jack Black) from the washed-up 90s novelty band, Tenacious D, made exactly those remarks. Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, better known by his online handle Destiny, went even further: going out of his way to appear on any platform that would have him to not only bemoan the inaccuracy of the shot, but proudly proclaim that he did not even care that Corey Comperatore, the innocent man shot by the assailant while protecting his family, lost his life.

As horrid as those remarks are, and they rightfully received their backlash, they are the logically consistent position of the bullshit the US establishment – aided by left-wing activists – has been actively pushing. I mean who cares if a Nazi gets shot at a Nazi rally, right?

WORDS

Words have meaning, and as Jordan Peterson warns: “be precise in your speech”. Adolf Hitler was responsible for the murder of at least 17 million people. As at the time of writing, Trump is responsible for zero murders.

And after a very brief pause, both the Democrats and mainstream media are right back to calling Trump “the existential threat to democracy”. Going through the legal process to challenge election results apparently amounts to an “existential threat”. It is honestly a surprise that more people haven’t been motivated to shoot him after being blasted with lie after lie after lie, non-stop propaganda, for nine years.

Don’t get me started on making a criminal out of your political opponent for incorrectly filling out a campaign finance declaration form. Given how the media has presented that case, one would be mistaken for thinking non-disclosure agreements (i.e. “hush money”) were illegal.

So if you can’t beat him in the polls and you can’t throw him in jail, what’s the next logical step? You’ve spent almost a decade laying out the justification.

The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position

ACTIONS

But if the media is actually genuine in its calls to “cool the temperature” and “return to civil political discourse”, cheap throwaway lines aren’t going to cut it. Lecturing others to be nicer when talking politics might not have the desired effect. To truly cool political temperatures we need to stop talking past each other and actually address the legitimate grievances of all sides.

Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature by calling any politician or political candidate who isn’t an outright establishment hack “dangerous”? How about the endless climate fearmongering? Or cheerleading the greatest assault on liberty for over three years? Radio silence.

But don’t even think about sharing a meme about the stupidity of the world we currently find ourselves in, because that is what’s dangerous. Unauthorised speech, or “misinformation” according to the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary, is the true danger according to the media. It is dangerous because it is a gate they cannot keep.

While more civility in politics would certainly be refreshingly welcome, maybe it’s time for the media and establishment politicians to lead by example and take some accountability for their own (massive) roles in turning up the dial. Maybe then I’ll be willing to take the call a little more seriously.

CFMEU Should NOT Exist in the First Place

In light of recent scandals surrounding the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), it is time to consider a more fundamental issue: the very existence of unions in modern society. Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect. From a libertarian perspective, unions disrupt voluntary employer-employee relationships, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. The existence of unions like the CFMEU is contrary to the principles of a free market and individual autonomy.

Libertarian economists and thinkers have extensively argued that unions are inherently coercive institutions that distort labour markets and undermine individual freedom. Essentially, unions are a political organisation rather than an economic organisation, aiming at controlling the labour market with coercive and political means, rather than through voluntary exchange and cooperation.

Distortion of Labour Markets

Fundamentally, unions disrupt the natural balance between employers and employees. Unions often demand higher wages and better working conditions than what the market can sustainably provide, which inevitably leads to inefficiencies and can drive businesses to reduce their workforce. As Murray Rothbard once stated, “unions cannot determine wage rates without putting companies out of business and causing unemployment.” The adversarial relationships unions create between employers and employees often lead to strikes, reduced productivity, and a hostile work environment. Employers are forced to comply with union demands or face the threat of collective action, which is economically damaging.

Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous.

Infringement on Individual Liberty

Unions impose collective bargaining agreements on all workers, regardless of individual preferences. This coercive nature undermines the voluntary nature of employment contracts. One of the most fundamental arguments against unions is that they violate the very basic principle of freedom of association, as well as the freedom not to associate. In a free market, employment terms are negotiated based on mutual benefit. Employers offer wages and conditions that reflect the value of the work, and employees accept jobs that meet their needs and preferences. This voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.

Perpetuation of Corruption and Inefficiency

The CFMEU scandal is just another recent prime example of how unions can become corrupt and self-serving. Instead of protecting workers, the CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities, kickback schemes, and internal conflicts that harm the very people they are supposed to help. This corruption is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the broader problem with unions. With power comes corruption. It is no surprise that unions become corrupt over time as that is part of their nature.

The Case for Abolishing Unions

Given all the fundamental problems with unions, the natural conclusion is that we should abolish them entirely. Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous. Without unions, employers and employees would engage in direct negotiations, fostering a more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. Without unions, businesses would operate more efficiently, leading to greater innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect.

Furthermore, the abolition of unions would protect individual freedoms. Workers would and should have the freedom to negotiate their terms of employment based on their unique needs and circumstances, without being forced into collective agreements that may not serve their interests. This would lead to a more diverse and dynamic labour market, where individuals are free to pursue opportunities that best align with their skills and personal situations.

Moreover, many industries with either very weak or nominal unions, such as hospitality, IT, and the gig economy, flourish due to less intervention from unions, resulting in a freer labour market. For example, the tech industry has seen tremendous growth and innovation partly because it is less burdened by union constraints, allowing for more flexible and dynamic employment practices. The gig economy, encompassing platforms like Uber, demonstrates how flexible work arrangements can be managed without the involvement or interference of unions. This, I believe, represents the future of employment, where every individual acts as their own boss, making the existence of unions unnecessary. These examples highlight how a freer labour market can lead to industry growth and innovation, benefiting both employers and employees.

Conclusion

In summary, unions like the CFMEU should have no place in a modern, free-market economy. They distort labour markets, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. From a libertarian perspective, the abolition of unions would lead to a more prosperous, fair, and free society. By allowing voluntary employer-employee relationships to flourish, we can create a more dynamic and innovative economy that benefits everyone.