Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

    Home Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections Page 4

    Another Brick in the Wall

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    Libertarians don’t argue a lot about education policy. And yet, ‘school choice’ and ‘decentralised education’ are ideas that unite us with conservatives generally. Empowering parents to homeschool forms a branch of this policy, and indeed many parents have become more interested in homeschooling as Australia’s education standards have slipped and an ideological agenda has emerged within its curriculum. 

    But the thought ends there – that homeschooling simply represents an antidote to ideological capture within the school system. I think it’s time libertarians thought a bit more deeply about education. Like how entrenched our acceptance of outsourcing education to schools and ‘teachers’ has become. Or the extent to which we have internalised the notion of learning as a regimented and formal process. 

    Learning is not just books, essays, worksheets and equations, it is the people you meet and converse with, the skills you acquire, the experiences you go through and the interests you take up.

    Homeschooling is erroneously thought of as effectively school at home. Parents naturally baulk at the idea of devoting their entire day to home education in a ‘teacher’ role and depriving their children of the social interactions that children enjoy by attending school. Further to this, our cultural conditioning (that manifests as ‘trust the experts’) leads parents to believe that without formal training they are ill-equipped to provide their children with a sufficiently well-rounded education. 

    In reality, the extent to which formal education as a child is necessary to succeed in life and become competent as an adult is completely overblown. I’d wager that if we simply removed school (primary and secondary) entirely from society without a legislated replacement, we would not go backwards. Quite the opposite in fact. 

    Learning is not just books, essays, worksheets and equations, it is the people you meet and converse with, the skills you acquire, the experiences you go through and the interests you take up. Our collective obsession with productivity and hours ‘worked’ has spilled onto our unfortunate children, who are similarly subjected to unnecessary years of classroom ‘busy work’ – designed to homogenise student progress. 

    Homeschooled children spend much less time on focussed classroom-like tasks, but play more and spend more time with their families. Most importantly, they learn and grow at their own pace, following their passions and interests with vigour and an intensity that school students often don’t. Homeschooled children are not socially stunted either – in fact, they tend to exhibit more confidence and assertiveness (particularly with unfamiliar adults) than their age-segregated counterparts.  

    Australia’s education standards have slipped and an ideological agenda has emerged within its curriculum. 

    At last year’s Friedman Conference, I was most inspired by the insights of a homeschooling father and advocate who described one instance of his son deciding in his mid-teens he wanted to study science. Despite being mostly uninitiated with the prerequisite maths, within a year he had mastered several textbooks and was ready to begin tertiary level study in that field – a feat school pupils typically take a decade to achieve. 

    This is all before delving into how hopelessly unprepared school graduates are for adult life – financial literacy, civics, basic practical skills and even interpersonal skills are very much lacking in modern schooling. This continues into tertiary education. 

    Join Mailing List

    Libertarians and conservatives concerned with ideological capture within education institutions are missing the point – the entire system approaches learning with the same failed mentality that plagues workplaces. More hours spent in formal study does not equate to greater preparedness for employment or adult life in general. On the other hand, the time spent at home playing and with family, following their interests and pursuing their goals, is invaluable. 

    Politics in the classroom is just the beginning. Our children simply deserve better than what the education system is offering.  

    The Mask Is Off, Now

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Reproduced with permission from The BFD https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/04/06/the-mask-is-off-now/

    It must be such a relief for him. Finally, Anthony Albanese doesn’t even have to bother pretending any more: he’s finally got the excuse he’s been itching for, to rip the mask off and show what he really thinks.

    Or, more correctly, what he knows will win precious votes in Western Sydney.

    Perhaps Albo isn’t an Israel-hating anti-Semite at heart. Most likely — we hope — it’s just his standard gutless opportunism. Although whether pandering to anti-Semites to win their votes is any less reprehensible than the real thing is debatable. At least the genuine anti-Semite has the poor excuse of being genuine.

    Albo would just sell his soul to try and cling to government.

    The excuse I’m referring to is the accidental killing of an Australian aid worker in Gaza. It’s the excuse Albanese has been desperate for, so he can give up even pretending to be even-handed, and give over to full-throated hatred of Israel.

    And what a pathetic, tawdry excuse it is.

    Leaving aside the question of just why even aid workers think they can swan into a war zone with zero risk, or just what the workers were doing delivering aid to the very people who cheered on the October 7 atrocities (consider, for example, that people delivering aid to Nazi Germany would have been treated as the Quislings they were), the hypocrisy from Albo and other world leaders is stunning.

    It is hypocritical and ridiculous for the citizens of nations that have accidentally killed far more people than Israel to now lecture Israel about its wayward bombs.

    When Australian Galit Carbone was murdered — not accidentally, but deliberately, gleefully, targeted for execution — Anthony Albanese said nothing. When Australian Michael O’Neill was killed while delivering aid in Ukraine, Albo made no thundering public condemnation, or brow-beating phone calls to either Russian or Ukrainian leaders.

    Albo’s hypocrisy is just the start.

    David Cameron has got some front. The Foreign Secretary is haranguing Israel over its tragic unintentional killing of seven aid workers in Gaza, and yet he oversaw a war in which such ‘friendly fire’ horrors were commonplace. In fact, more than seven people were slain in accidental bombings under Cameron’s watch. Terrible accidents happen in war. It was the Libya intervention of 2011. In that NATO-led excursion, in which Cameron, then prime minister, was an enthusiastic partner, numerous Libyans died as a result of misaimed bombs. Things got so bad that the West’s allies took to painting the roofs of their vehicles bright pink in an effort to avoid NATO’s missiles.

    In one awful incident, 13 people were slaughtered by our ‘friendly fire’. Their number included not only anti-Gaddafi rebels but also ambulance workers. It was in the wake of this calamity that the rebels got out the pink paint. ‘How to avoid friendly fire? Libya rebels try pink’, said a headline at NBC News.

    Yet now Cameron is on his high horse over Israel’s bombing of trucks carrying volunteers from the World Central Kitchen.

    At least the genuine anti-Semite has the poor excuse of being genuine.

    It’s also notable that Anthony Albanese and David Cameron are much less forthright in their condemnations of Hamas. Apart from mumbling a couple of half-hearted reprovals, Albo’s kept a constant eye on Western Sydney’s Muslim enclaves — one of the few remaining redoubts in a steadily-shrinking Labor vote.

    Joe Biden’s backers have done the maths, too — and coldly calculated that Muslims now outnumber Jews in the ranks of Democrat voters.

    US president Joe Biden has also weighed in, saying he is ‘outraged’ by the killing of the aid workers. You can’t help but wonder whether he directed similar outrage at his own nation’s military when 37 Afghanis at a wedding party, mostly women and children, were killed by mistake in a US airstrike.

    ‘Stop killing Afghan civilians’, the then president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, said to the newly elected US president, Barack Obama. And who was Obama’s vice-president? Biden, of course. You would think a man whose own military has killed huge numbers of people in error would understand that these things happen, even if every decent person would rather they didn’t.

    Vast numbers of civilians have been killed by accident by the US in recent years. At another wedding party in 2004, this time in Iraq, 11 women and 14 children were killed by American fire. Was there a ‘full, transparent explanation’ for that calamity?

    Join Mailing List

    The double standards are staggering. It is hypocritical and ridiculous for the citizens of nations that have accidentally killed far more people than Israel to now lecture Israel about its wayward bombs.

    And the fact remains that Hamas kills civilians, not in error, but as a matter of policy. They don’t even pretend that that’s not the case.

    Yet, there are the marching morons of the left, bellowing Hamas’ genocidal battle-cry, day in, day out.

    These cretinous idiots don’t give a damn about civilian lives, for all their pseudo-pious grandstanding. It’s only ever been about bashing Jews.

    God and Government

    By
    James Hol
    -
    4

    “No gods, no masters” has been a popular anarchist phrase for over 500 years. Yet as society and culture becomes increasingly secular, authoritarianism has grown alongside it. The atheist utopia of a world dedicated to logic and reason seems further away now than it ever has been, despite more people choosing not to affiliate with religion.

    STATE WORSHIP

    Religion, in some form or another, has existed ever since humans developed consciousness. In fact, sacred texts like the Bible, Tanakh and Quran did not have a word or even a concept of religion in their original languages – nor did the people or cultures in which they were written. In other words, religion itself is so ingrained into the human experience that it precedes the concept of religion. The people and cultures of biblical times viewed religion as so quintessentially human that they saw no need to develop a distinction.

    So is the modern rise of atheism the beginning of perhaps the most fundamental change in human nature?

    The libertarian readership of Liberty Itch should have little problem acknowledging the danger of elevating government to the place of ultimate authority in Western society.

    Modern atheists are not embracing the 15th-century anarchist phrase; they have simply replaced their god with something else – and something worse. Covid tyranny showcased many things, perhaps most alarmingly the willingness of so many to so readily worship at the altar of the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient state. The government served as the Father; the “all-knowing” bureaucrat as the Son; and The Science™ as the Spirit.

    And for atheists who manage to escape the religion of government, they simply find another god: money, consumerism and hedonism being some of the more popular ones.

    MYTH AND LEGEND

    Atheists are quick to point out the ridiculousness of many religious truth claims. Until very recently I would have considered myself one of these atheists. However, they completely miss the point. Debating whether the universe was truly created in six days or whether the Great Flood was all that great is the most uninspired, surface-level analysis of religion. Yet every discussion about religion seems to lead to a boring dissection of the truthfulness of highly symbolic stories written in a unique literary style many thousands of years ago.

    The Bible, and other similar sacred texts, is not a dispassionate recount of historical events, but a book that delicately interweaves prose and poetry, narrative and direct address, and history and myth. It is also important that we do not regard “myth” as merely synonymous with untruth. A myth can be a profoundly true statement which speaks to universal aspects of life and reality: its meaning rises above time and space. Art, film and music can all provide transcendent meaning and truth to our understanding of the human experience as well as our own lives, whether or not the subject matter is objectively true. Religion is no exception.

    Religion, in some form or another, has existed ever since humans developed consciousness.

    LIFE AND MEANING

    If you have no authority higher than government, government becomes the greatest authority. The libertarian readership of Liberty Itch should have little problem acknowledging the danger of elevating government to the place of ultimate authority in Western society. Even the US Founding Fathers saw the need to mention that our rights are derived from God; and while not all libertarians agree with the divine origin of rights, we can all agree that they are inherent – they were not endowed merely by fiat of man.

    But if religion has existed for as long as humanity, what is the significance of Christianity?

    There is a reason Christianity is the most popular religion: no matter what degree of interpretation you choose, it will always provide meaning. Whether you choose to take a more literal interpretation or orient your life toward the symbolic meaning that can be extracted from biblical text, you will be an objectively better person and lead an objectively more meaningful life. While correlation is not necessarily causative, it is hard to ignore the ridiculous degeneracy of a modern society that actively rejects religion, particularly Christianity.

    Join Mailing List

    While deriving meaning from the extraordinary is not unique to Christianity, it is unique to traditional religion – rather than the modern idols we have put in its place. Worshipping the state, money, hedonistic impulses, vapid consumerist culture or any other modern idol will provide you with neither self-improvement nor meaning. Perhaps if I were writing this for an Eastern audience, I might urge readers to consider Hinduism or Buddhism; but it seems absurd to suggest that westerners overlook the religion that has been foundational to the very culture we live in.


    While Easter may be wrapping up, it is not too late to pick up a Bible or visit your local church. It may very well be the most libertarian thing you can do.

    Geopolitics and The Non-Aggression Principle

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    For an example of how libertarians philosophically wrestle, behold this exchange between the Arizona Libertarians and Australian Brett Lombardi:

    It is eloquent in its brevity: realpolitik confronting Rothbardian idealism.

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle. Put simply, this is the idea that violence and coercion between parties should be avoided, and that people should act cooperatively and in harmony. 

    It has mainly been applied to situations between individuals. But what about non-aggression between nation states, the geopolitical sphere?

    Enter libertarian heavyweight, Murray Rothbard:

    In National Defence and The Theory of Externalities, he wrote:

    “For the libertarian, the key to foreign policy is the defence of the homeland against aggression. The State should protect the citizens, keep the peace, and defend person and property from attack.”

    Straightforward enough, it seems. But what is ‘homeland’?

    Let’s put the Rothbardians to the test with a series of scenarios, asking whether each is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle:

    – The Chinese Navy sails to Venice Beach, California, with amphibious craft landing and troops shooting people. I’m sure we can agree this violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

    – What if US surveillance determined in advance that the Chinese were coming and warned them not to enter the 12 nautical miles of US territorial waters? The Chinese ignore and enter, then the US engage the aggressor at 11.9 nautical miles? Is this a Chinese or US violation?

    – What about at the US exclusive economic zone boundary of 200 nautical miles? If US engages, is this a violation?

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success.

    Rothbard doesn’t say what the ‘homeland’ is but would probably pick one of these boundaries.

    But we can test this further:

    – In 1893, US agents and businessmen mounted a successful coup against the Kingdom of Hawaii, asserting that their investment and private property rights were under threat. The US “annexed” Hawaii in 1898 as a territory. Did the US violate?

    – Then in 1941, Japan bombed this territory. Hawaii wasn’t even a state of the US at the time of the Pearl Harbour attack. Were the US defending their ‘homeland’ when it used anti-aircraft fire against the Japanese, or were they in continued violation of the Non-Aggression Principle because of their prior military-backed coup?

    – What if the Chinese today invaded Guam or American Samoa, both mere territories as Hawaii was? Would this be a violation? Both locations are closer to China than the US. Where does US ‘homeland’ end?

    Rothbard doesn’t define the extent of the US homeland, but I suspect he might regard these territories as empire-building and so in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

    He heavily criticised Gulf War I as an example of creeping empires in The Case For Radical Idealism:

    “In foreign affairs, the libertarian sees the danger and evil of the U.S. launching an aggressive war against Iraq. This is why the true lovers of liberty should condemn the Bush Administration’s war, and make it crystal clear that, in their libertarian view, it is a criminal war of imperialist aggression.”

    In that vein: 

    – What about the joint US-Australian Military Surveillance Base at Pine Gap, Northern Territory? Among its many purposes, this base is used by the US to determine whether Guam and American Samoa are under threat of attack. In an age of intercontinental missiles taking only 30 minutes to reach their targets, can the US defend this base as a defence of its homeland?

    – If the Chinese bombed Darwin’s Robertson Barricks at which 2,500 US marines are based on the invitation of Australia, does the US violate the Non-Aggression Principle by defending those US marines and Australian soldiers?

    – If China ‘annexed’ Taiwan, would that be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? If so, is it really the view of libertarians in Arizona that libertarians should merely shrug our shoulders?

    Rothbard shunned territorial pre-emption yet these are realpolitik situations. I think this is a huge Rothbardian blind-spot.

    Should the British have waited for Napoleon to land on the beaches of Dover? Should the Australians have met the Japanese at Cooktown rather than Kokoda? At what point should the British RAF have engaged the raiding Luftwaffe? Over Canterbury, Calais or Cologne?

    Even if we just define ‘homeland’ as current national borders, there is still much to challenge us about Rothbard. For instance, in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, he elaborates on the type of impermissible intervention:

    “A non-interventionist policy means that America does not interfere militarily, politically or covertly in the affairs of the other nations.”

    Rothbard refined this further, in War, Peace and The State:

    “War, then, even a just defensive war, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals themselves. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.”

    So, Rothbardian libertarians such as those in Arizona argue that defence of the homeland against aggression is permitted but that defence cannot extend to preventative measures and defensive force may only be aimed at individual war criminals!

    How a commander would know, in the heat of battle, the identity of a war criminal in advance of a war crimes tribunal is beyond me.

    None of these expressions of libertarianism give me much confidence that, when applied, practical benefits will result. And yet the entire point of libertarian philosophy is to spawn policies which work to unleash human flourishing. 

    More realism and less idealism, I say.

    In this regard, I am not a Rothbardian idealist. I prefer the view of leading realpolitik libertarians like David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute who wrote:

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    “Libertarians should be realistic about the world. Some level of military and intelligence capability is necessary for national defence and to secure the freedoms that libertarians cherish.”

    And Nick Gillespie, Editor-At-Large, Reason Magazine who offered:

    “Libertarians are not pacifists. We recognise that the state has a role in national defence. The key is to ensure that this role is strictly limited to protecting the country from external threats and does not devolve into unnecessary interventions.”

    Or this from Cato Institute’s, Julian Sanchez:

    “Libertarians should recognise that there may be cases where limited and well-defined military intervention can be justified on humanitarian grounds, such as preventing genocide.”

    Let me marshal further libertarian opinion to counter Rothbard. Here, leading US libertarian Senator Rand Paul:

    “While a strict non-interventionist foreign policy may have its merits, there can be instances where limited government intervention is necessary to protect the nation’s security and interest.”

    And Brian Doherty, Senior Editor at Reason Magazine, who penned:

    “While avoiding unnecessary conflicts is crucial, libertarians should acknowledge the importance of maintaining a credible defense to deter potential aggressors and protect individual rights from external threats.”

    Yet further still, perhaps more gently, even leading libertarian philosopher and Rothbard rival, Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia, wrote:

    “A minimal state devoted to the task of protecting rights and enforcing contract will, if minimal enough, and if rights include rights to self-defence, do all that government can do.”

    Join Mailing List

    So limited government intervention, doing “all that government can do” and deterrence feature strongly.

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success. Freedom House says there are only 38 free nations in a world of 195 countries. Freedom is rare and must be protected wherever it blooms. 

    Brett Lombardi gets it right.

    The Rule of Law is Being Ignored by Conservatives

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    3

    The High Court recently ruled that:

    – if immigration detention is not a practical step towards a person being removed from the country, the detention amounts to punishment, and

    – governments can only mete out punishment if they are sentencing someone for a crime.

    This ruling led to the release of around 140 people who were in immigration detention but not on a path to removal from the country.

    Both the ruling and the release were positive developments.

    The people in question could not be lawfully removed from Australia because Australian law: 

    – requires another country to take them, and there was no country willing to do so,

    – deems them to be subject to persecution overseas and hence deserving of protection here, or

    – deems them to be physically or mentally unfit for removal.

    These laws are decent and should remain. 

    Some of the people in question have committed no crime. There is no justification for indefinitely detaining people like this, just as there is no justification for detaining citizens who are non-criminals.

    The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians. 

    Some of the people in question have committed crimes, but all of them have completed the sentences handed down for those crimes. There is no justification for continuing to detain people who have completed their sentences.

    If you are found guilty of a crime, you are sentenced by a court that has all the evidence before it. Years later, a panel or tribunal considering post-sentence punishment will be inherently less informed about your crime than the original court, and may end up punishing you for things you are yet to do and may not do. The injustice of this is exacerbated if post-sentence punishments were not part of the law when you committed the crime.

    In Western civilisation, a certain amount of surveillance and the availability of preliminary offences like conspiracy, aiding-and-abetting, and attempt, are balanced responses to the prospect of future crime. Preventative detention, continuing detention, curfews, and ankle bracelets are not.

    The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.  Despite this, conservative politicians have suggested the ruling and release were bad outcomes.

    Liberal National politicians have suggested that the Labor Government should have maintained its long-standing lie to the courts that the people in question were on a path to removal from the country. 

    These politicians have called for public reporting on the location of people who have been released from immigration detention (without corresponding calls relating to citizens released from prisons). 

    They have also claimed that, under Labor, Australian women are at risk of being assaulted by foreign criminals.

    That said, Labor’s approach has been far from enlightened. Labor argued against, and has since opposed, the High Court ruling.  Labor has also punished and imposed constraints on the people released from detention without doing anything similar to citizens with the same criminal history (or absence thereof).

    Crime more generally

    The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians. 

    The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.

    The Liberal National Coalition has recently proposed that those who make social media posts depicting violence, drug offences, or property offences be hit with up to two years’ imprisonment plus a ban from social media. 

    Conservative politicians regularly call for less bail, so that people are locked up despite not being convicted of a crime. They cite re-offending as a reason for more incarceration, when re-offending can just as readily serve as evidence of the failure of incarceration. They also justify calls for more police, based on claims that crime is out of control.

    As it happens, crime rates in Australia are low and falling.

    3.1 per cent of people older than 14 were victims of physical assault in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.7 per cent. 

    Over the same period, the rate for robbery went from 0.6 per cent to 0.2 per cent.

    3.3 per cent of households were victims of break-ins in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.8 per cent.

    Over the same period, the rate for malicious property damage went from 11 per cent to 3.7 per cent. 

    Join Mailing List

    Regarding youth crime, in 2008-09 the rate of offending by those aged 10 to 17 was 3,186.8 per 100,000. In 2022-23 it was 1,847.3 per 100,000.

    And with crime by people born overseas, such people make up 30 per cent of the population but only 17 per cent of the prison population. 

    It is incumbent upon those who are liberally-minded to oppose arbitrary detention and punishment, fanciful claims of crime waves, and the conservatives who perpetuate such madness.

    Exciting times ahead for uranium mining in Western Australia

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    0

    During the 2017 WA election, McGowan’s Labor opposition campaigned hard to reinstate the ban on uranium mining. They followed through on this after winning the state election that year. 

    Both Labor and the Greens ran scare mongering campaigns conflating uranium mining with the public’s historic nervousness regarding nuclear energy. Prior scare mongering has led to uranium mining projects being distrusted and shunned by the community. 

    However, public opinion on uranium and nuclear energy are rapidly evolving. The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging. Peter Dutton advised an economic forum in Sydney recently that he has consulted face-to-face with leading energy professionals from Europe, Asia and North America. Dutton will also be attending similar meetings in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. 

    Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    Following Dutton’s announcement, Western Australia’s Liberal leader Libby Mettam declared her party will repeal Labor’s state uranium mining ban, if Liberals win the 2025 state election. If this were to occur, uranium miners could utilise the standard minerals environmental approvals process.

    Labor has continued its anti-uranium campaign, with WA Premier Roger Cook saying uranium mines are not profitable at current prices. This is a big call and not very credible, considering uranium has already more than tripled in price since 2020 as the world re-embraces nuclear energy. 

    Western Australia has a robust, experienced labour force in the mining and resources sector. This labour force is perfectly poised to take up work in uranium mining. 

    Global demand for uranium looks to be steadily increasing. Opening up uranium mines in Western Australia will offer stable employment for the sector’s workforce. This will be a relief, given fluctuations in other sectors. For example, six nickel mines across the state closed in 2023 as a consequence of a 43% price drop on nickel after Indonesia, the Philippines and China caused a glut in the market.

    Western Australia has 11 known deposits of uranium, totalling approximately 226,000 tonnes.

    The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging.

    In 2017, Labor gave exemptions to four uranium projects which had been approved prior to the state election: 

    • Wiluna Project, owned by Toro Energy 
    • Yeelirrie Project owned by Cameco
    • Mulga Rock Project owned by Vimy Resources
    • Kintyre Project, owned by Cameco

    Mulga Rock Project never started production, and the other three stalled due to financial pressures soon thereafter. Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    2025 will see nuclear power generation reach new records globally, heralding an exciting renaissance of nuclear energy. This is driven by increasing demands for electricity that is both cheap and reliable while not being reliant on fossil fuels. 

    Thirty-two countries already utilise the energy source, and 50 are set to introduce it. Many of these 82 countries will be potential buyers, should Western Australia lift its ban on uranium mining. 

    Join Mailing List

    In a recent interview the successful contrarian investor Rick Rule, President and CEO of Sprott US Holdings, commented that:

    “The country that has access to the uranium, the country that has access to the stable craton that’s dry, the country that has access to a skilled labour force and the rule of law, is this truly odd country called Australia. The uranium business should be an Australian business.”

    Western Australia is perfectly positioned to remove the government ban on uranium mining, and capitalise on Rick’s salient advice.

    Granny Basher’s Discharge Sends the Right Message

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    3

    One year ago I made a young man famous. The video footage of the horrific political violence he perpetrated against a 71 year-old lady at a Women’s Rights rally shocked the world, leading to international condemnation of New Zealand. 

    Two weeks ago I was in court to witness his sentencing: he received a discharge without conviction and his name was permanently suppressed. 

    Immediately after the hearing I interviewed his distressed victim on the courthouse steps and published the unredacted version of her Victim Impact Statement. This is the original, containing the changes agreed between the prosecution and defence counsels, written in the police prosecutor’s own handwriting, before it was handed back to the victim so she could read it in open court.

    The publication of this material led to further international outrage, intensified by their sharing and re-posting on social media by celebrities as varied as Alison Moyet and Martina Navratilova. The case appeared to obviously justify a conviction and substantial sentence. The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court. 

    Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy.

    Kiwis, on the other hand, were quite unsurprised. 
    A key reason is that the Establishment was directly implicated in the violence. MPs of the two governing parties at the time, Labour and the Greens, actually participated in the mob. One Green party MPs incited her 41,000 followers that morning stating she was “So ready to fight Nazis” on her way to the demonstration. Another appeared to justify employing political violence against her perceived opponents in a subsequent television interview. Even Chris Hipkins, the Labour party Prime Minister at the time, effused about how proud he would have been to support it in person.

    New Zealand is a small country. That the government of Labour and the Greens had joined forces with Trades Union and Rainbow groups to suppress women’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly is widely known. If anything, the reaction from officialdom was expected.

    What followed was entirely predictable. Only two of the many perpetrators of violence that day have been charged. One has just been all-but acquitted and the other is yet to see the inside of a courtroom, a full year after the event. Victims of other assaults were told that police “were not there to protect them” by multiple police officers. In refusing to pursue several arrests and prosecutions of identified offenders, some victims were themselves blamed by police for their own assaults.

    To this day, none of the organisers who incited violence have been charged. None of the legacy media organisations which fabricated false narratives has been sanctioned by governing or government bodies.

    Instead, the people of New Zealand have been treated to political theatre. Panem et circenses without the bread.

    The case against this young man is a case in point. In my opinion police deliberately bungled the investigation and prosecution at every juncture; initially informing the victim that charges couldn’t be laid without knowing her assailant’s identity, then minimising charges when the identity was supplied. The offender could have been charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act or the lesser charge of Male Assaults Female; instead he received the minimum charge police could possibly engineer: Common Assault.

    The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court. 

    And from there it only gets worse. Diversion is a system in New Zealand where first-time offenders, typically the young, avoid conviction for minor offences. It is atypical for Diversion to be offered to an offender in a case of serious assault, particularly when opposed by the victim. Yet the police offered Diversion to the offender anyway, only retracting it with risible claims of “administrative error” in response to public uproar. 

    This has all been theatre. The people have been distracted by the ebbs and flows of this case while the broader issues remain. In my opinion the defendant at the centre of it all is almost inconsequential: a young man radicalised on campus by far-Left, extremist propaganda who committed an awful crime and has become the focus of worldwide rage because of it.

    While those who radicalised him have not been called to account.

    New Zealand prescribes puberty blockers to children at ten times the rate of the United Kingdom’s NHS, at least it did until the NHS banned such prescriptions a week ago. Attending gender training is mandatory for some employees in both the public and private sectors. New Zealand birth certificates cannot be used as a supplemental form of identification in any Western country because of the Self-Identification law, unopposed by any party in parliament. Drag queens groom children weekly in libraries, paid for by taxpayers. Midwives who use the words “woman” or “mother” risk de-registration by the Midwifery Council. The Relationships and Sexual Education program mandated by the Ministry of Education is simply rainbow indoctrination of impressionable children. 

    Join Mailing List

    Objecting to any of this invites condemnation, ostracism and even unemployment. Gender ideology has permeated New Zealand society to such an extent that Kiwis live in fear of the consequences of not adhering to its orthodoxies.

    Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy. The true battle we should be fighting is against Gender Ideology, those who promulgate it, and those who employ cancellation and political violence against those who dissent. Meanwhile the Establishment laughs at how easy it was to distract our attention by feeding us a steady diet of bread and circuses about some stupid kid.

    A Letter to My Kid’s Childcare Centre

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    Background:

    A few weeks ago, when dropping off my child at their childcare centre, I noticed something on the classroom whiteboard that I hadn’t paid attention to before – the “Daily Routine”. Amid the usual activities, one particular sticker caught my eye: “Acknowledgement of Country”. I was SHOCKED. It prompted me to write the following letter to the Centre.

    Dear Centre Management Team,

    I hope this message finds you well. I want to start by expressing my deep gratitude for the nurturing environment the Centre provides. It has been a joy to see my child thrive, embracing the learning and playing programs, along with diverse cultural celebrations, from Chinese festivals to many others. Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    However, I feel compelled to share a concern, approached with the utmost respect for the delicate balance you maintain. Over the past year, I’ve observed several Aboriginal events and celebrations, including last year’s National Reconciliation Week with the slogan “Be a VOICE for Generations – Act Today For A Reconciled Tomorrow,” amid the very controversial and politically divided national Voice referendum. Recently, I was surprised to notice a “Daily Routine” of “Acknowledgement of Country”. 

    if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day?

    While I deeply respect Aboriginal people, I am concerned that this is verging into the realm of political expression, given the variety of views on this topic within our community, vividly highlighted in the last referendum debate which resulted in over 60% voting No.

    As I see it, “Acknowledgement of Country” carries a strong politically driven message that may convey controversial implications. Its literal meaning not only recognises the historical ownership of the land by indigenous Australians but also implies the concept of “stolen land”, as promoted by many Voice advocates, along with “Pay the Rent” as one of the preferred “Treaties.” If the land and property we own today were “stolen,” should we then return it? And if so, to whom? If we do not, which I guess is the case for most, does that make us hypocritical?

    I am a migrant drawn to Australia for its embodiment of Western values – democracy, liberty, and the rule of law – the principles that make Australia unique and appealing globally. My hope is to see these aspects of our great country celebrated and taught with the same enthusiasm. If politics is to be taught in school, a highlight of our country’s values should be celebrated, foundational to our society and a reason we have a wonderful Centre with educators and students from diverse cultural backgrounds.

    Your respect for multiple cultures is much appreciated in a country where nearly 30% of the population was born overseas.

    As a parent, I am thrilled to see kids learning new things, meeting new friends, acquiring new skills, fostering good character, and growing well physically and mentally. I always appreciate the Centre for providing a great learning environment and having educators who genuinely care for the kids. Having grown up in an authoritarian country, I recall how political education at every level significantly affected young kids’ freedom of thought. Therefore, I am extremely concerned if certain controversial opinions are taught as facts to young minds.

    Might I suggest that if we are celebrating National Reconciliation Week and National NAIDOC Week, we should also dedicate a full day to celebrating Australia Day? This gesture could serve to highlight the unity and shared core values within our diverse community. Additionally, while the learning of new Aboriginal songs enriches our cultural tapestry, perhaps including ‘Advance Australia Fair’ occasionally could foster a broader sense of national pride and identity. 

    Furthermore, if ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ is part of our daily routine, exploring the Christian origins and significance of the coming Easter holiday – beyond the familiar symbols of rabbits and eggs – could offer the children an opportunity to understand the holiday’s deeper cultural and religious meanings.

    Join Mailing List

    Please understand that my reflections are shared with the highest regard for the incredible work you do and in no way diminish my gratitude for your dedication. My intent is to engage in a constructive dialogue about how we can celebrate all facets of our community’s culture, including its core Western heritage, with balance and sensitivity.

    Thank you for considering my perspective. I look forward to any thoughts you may have on this matter and remain, as always, immensely appreciative of your commitment to our children’s growth and well-being.

    Regards,

    A Concerned Parent

    The Everyday Libertarian

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    In today’s politically charged atmosphere, evangelical libertarians often stray into polarising debates around topics like firearms or drug legalisation. Is there a subtler, more effective approach?  

    I suggest the “everyday libertarian mindset”. It involves reframing common complaints and concerns through the lens of smaller government and individual liberty.

    I often hear myself responding to complaints about government by saying “that’s why we need guns”.  When I say this, libertarians “get it”.  But this phrase causes our “normie” friends to switch off.

    Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power

    How about a more congenial conversational pivot:  “That’s why we need smaller government.”

    Picture this: A friend laments Australia’s low productivity. Instead of delving into a heated debate about employment policies, you respond calmly, “That’s why we need smaller government.” This simple phrase opens the door to a discussion about the role of government in the economy and the importance of prioritising individual liberties over interventionist agendas.

    Here are some instances where the everyday libertarian mindset shines:

    1. Healthcare costs: Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market. Advocating for smaller government and increased competition can give individuals greater control over their healthcare decisions and costs. Would there be a shortage of doctors, hospitals, and other services if the government got out of the way? 

    2. Education quality: When concerns arise about education quality, highlight how government monopolies limit choice and innovation in education. By advocating for school choice and decentralising control over education, parents and students can access a wider range of educational opportunities tailored to their needs.

    3. Bureaucratic red tape: Encountering bureaucratic red tape or inefficiency? Emphasise the need for smaller government and streamlined regulations. By reducing the size and scope of government, individuals and businesses can navigate processes more efficiently.

    4. Personal freedoms: Discuss personal freedoms and civil liberties, emphasising the importance of limiting government power to protect individual rights. Smaller government leads to less intrusion into citizens’ lives and greater respect for individual autonomy.

    Rather than blaming the system for rising healthcare costs, discuss how government regulations inflate prices and limit choice in the healthcare market

    5. Publicly funded broadcasters: When discussing the publicly funded government broadcasters, such as the ABC and SBS in Australia, consider the implications of government involvement in media. Point out that taxpayer-funded media outlets compete with the private sector, which do not cost taxpayers anything. By advocating for smaller government and media independence, individuals can support a diverse and free press that serves the interests of the public rather than political agendas. Encourage exploring alternative funding models, such as private sponsorship or subscriber-based models, to ensure journalistic integrity and freedom of expression.

    6. Nuclear energy: Discuss the lifting of the ban on nuclear energy in Australia. Smaller government policies can foster the development of diverse and innovative energy sources, including nuclear power. Advocate for a free-market approach to energy production, where individuals and businesses have the freedom to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy solutions without burdensome government regulations hindering progress.

    Join Mailing List

    I find the phrase “that’s why we need smaller government” easy to apply to almost any situation.  Any mistake a government makes – “that’s why we need smaller government – less for these people to stuff up”.

    By incorporating these instances, we illustrate how the everyday libertarian mindset can be applied to a wide range of issues, promoting smaller government and individual liberty in everyday conversations. It’s about sparking thoughtful discussions and planting seeds of libertarian principles in the minds of others, one conversation at a time.

    Finding common cause with the Greens

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    Because politics isn’t meant to be easy

    In Australia, libertarian candidates are rarely ranked highly on voters’ ballots.

    Libertarian candidates get first preferences from the small fraction of society who know and support the idea of libertarianism.

    And if they are still in the race when a conservative candidate is eliminated, they tend to get a reasonable share of the conservative candidate’s second preferences.

    But if they are still in the race when a progressive candidate is eliminated, they tend to get few of the progressive candidate’s second preferences.

    As a result of all this, more often than not the libertarian candidate fails to win a seat.

    To improve the prospects of libertarian candidates, one of the things required is for libertarian candidates to pick up more preferences from progressive voters. And they need to do this without losing votes from libertarian voters or preferences from conservative voters.

    It might be that this can be done by recognising the common ground a libertarian candidate has with progressive voters, and emphasising this common ground when communicating specifically with progressive voters.

    Residents of Australia’s offshore territories have a right to self-determination.

    Finding common ground is not easy.  Most policies promoted by progressive parties and favoured by progressive voters are statist, illiberal, and prone to failure. But not all. Some progressive policies can be supported by libertarian candidates.

    It would serve libertarian candidates well to reach out to progressive voters and let them know of this common ground. Such efforts could earn the libertarian candidate an occasional second preference on the ballots of progressive voters and might be the difference between victory and defeat.

    Consider the following policies of the Greens.  By my assessment, each of these policies is good. Libertarian candidates would be well served by communicating to progressive voters their support for such policies, and their willingness to work with progressive parties like the Greens to make them a reality.

    • Each state and territory should have at least one proportionally elected parliamentary chamber.
    • Incarceration should not be a bar to voting.
    • Being a public servant or dual citizen should not be a bar to becoming a parliamentarian. 
    • Australia should become a republic.
    • Residents of Australia’s offshore territories have a right to self-determination.
    • Citizens living in territories should have the same rights as citizens living in states, including the right to make their own laws regarding assisted suicide. 
    • The captivity, transport, and slaughter of animals should be regulated to prevent cruelty and suffering.
    • The production, sale and use of cannabis for recreational use should be legalised.
    • Forced female genital mutilation should be prohibited.
    • Consensual adult sex work should be decriminalised.
    • Stamp duties should be replaced with land tax.

    In Australia, libertarian candidates are rarely ranked highly on voters’ ballots.

    • There should be early parliamentary engagement in Australia’s negotiation of treaties, and agreements should be reviewable by parliament.
    • There should be no impacts on air and water quality detrimental to human or ecological health.
    • Australia’s ‘counter-terrorism’ legislation should be reformed to protect freedom of expression and association, freedom from arbitrary detention, legal due process, and the right to privacy.
    • Escaping violence on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status should be grounds for being considered to be a refugee.
    • Judicial discretion in sentencing should be upheld and mandatory sentencing legislation should be repealed.
    • The regulated sale of X-rated material should be allowed.
    • Australia should reject the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.
    • Australian Defence Force personnel should not be used in strike-breaking or policing activities which go beyond their remit.
    Join Mailing List

    Each of these good policies of the Greens sits alongside a raft of repugnant policies. So it can be hard, when in conversation with a Greens voter, to stick to the good Greens policies without mentioning the other policies. But this is what libertarians need to do, because when libertarian candidates start winning second preferences from progressive voters, getting elected and making real change becomes possible.

    1...345...9Page 4 of 9
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv