The Dangerous Use of the Military

15 November 2024

Ever since the Romans, standing armies have been viewed with deep suspicion. They are expensive to maintain, which often leads to onerous taxation, and they have an appalling record as instruments of oppression.

In Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England, Henry St. George Tucker wrote: “Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

America’s founding fathers were of the same opinion. Having freed themselves of British military tyranny, they were in no hurry to suffer the same fate at the hands of their own government. Alexander Hamilton thought Congress should vote every two years “upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot”, while Thomas Jefferson suggested the Greeks and Romans were wise “to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army.” James Madison wrote: “Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Standing armies remain a threat to liberty, much as they were in the time of the Romans.

In the twentieth century, with the growth in technology, a well-trained professional military became difficult to avoid. Some democracies, Switzerland being a well-known example, created a small full-time professional core but retained its reliance on citizen militia. Most others sought to limit the use of the military to national defence. Every dictatorship, by contrast, has used its military to retain power.

Our Australian Defence Force, while not enjoying the status of the military in Israel or America, nonetheless has widespread community support. It is also seen as professional and competent, if seriously under equipped, with no political agenda other than a growing trend towards wokeness.

Its role is also notionally limited to national defence, despite occasionally getting involved in such things as delivering relief supplies, erecting field hospitals or evacuating those affected by natural disasters. This is reinforced by the constitution, which nominates the Governor-General as commander in chief, not the Prime Minister, Defence Minister or state premiers.

But things have changed over the last few years. The ADF has not only provided logistics support during major bushfires, but has also engaged with police in traffic control. And during the Covid restrictions it worked alongside police to enforce border closures and quarantine and, in Victoria, to enforce a prolonged severe lockdown. A very important line was crossed.

Sections 92 and 117 of the constitution guarantee free movement of people and trade between the states. Although the High Court decided to allow WA’s border closures during the Covid period, many legal scholars believe it could go the other way in a similar case. For the ADF to have helped enforce border closures that might be unconstitutional is a particularly serious concern.

Our Australian Defence Force, while not enjoying the status of the military in Israel or America, nonetheless has widespread community support.

As for Victoria’s lockdowns, the implications for the ADF were worse by an order of magnitude. With the authority of a state of emergency, Victorian police were given extremely wide powers including the right to enter premises without a warrant, to enforce rules on exercise, working from home, wearing a mask, home quarantine, distance from home and essential work.

They attacked people walking peacefully and socially distanced, questioned and threatened those who post on Facebook about going walking, broke down doors and arrested those who advocated protests about the loss of freedom, and selectively arrested those who actually protested. Moreover, much of this occurred with a degree of thuggish enthusiasm that would be familiar to any of the last century’s dictators.

Join Mailing List

The only reason the police were able to do all this was because of the broad backup provided by the ADF. They could never have done it without them.

The ADF needs to focus on its national defence role. Indeed, given the worsening situation with China, that ought to be its only purpose. Perhaps it might have a role occasionally in providing relief during emergencies, but it should have absolutely no role in law enforcement, even indirectly.

Standing armies remain a threat to liberty, much as they were in the time of the Romans. We should not tolerate the ADF diminishing our liberty.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm was an Australian Senator from 2014 to 2019 representing New South Wales for the Liberal Democratic Party. Notable for his libertarian consistency, David’s work in Senate Estimates attracted acclaim worldwide for its forensic examination of government
waste. Professionally, he is a veterinarian and agribusiness consultant.

My 12 Years in Australia: Dreams, Doubts and Determination

Warren Wang

13 November 2024

The 30th of October marked my 12th anniversary in Australia. Twelve years ago, I left China — or more precisely, I escaped from China. I was extremely driven by a desire for freedom, following two life-changing years of struggle with Chinese authorities after speaking out against the authoritarian regime. I left in pursuit of freedom, better study opportunities, and the chance for personal growth. In this article, I want to share my personal story, while also discussing its relevance to labour laws, national productivity, and personal finance.

I still remember the day I landed in Sydney. The sky was so blue, the air so fresh, and with every single breath I could smell freedom. I arrived with $2000 in cash, and after paying three months of rent upfront as a guarantee, along with the first month’s rent, I was left with just a couple of hundred dollars. My first place in Sydney was a tiny single room, no more than 8 sqm, in a shared house that cost me $150 a week, cash. My hard-working parents had paid for my tuition, and I was determined not to ask them for another cent for my living expenses. From that moment, I was on my own.

Australia’s complex labour laws or take the risks that some of my previous employers did to create opportunities for young or unskilled workers.

So I started looking for jobs. I found my first gig as a waiter just three days after arriving and started working on the first weekend. After that I worked multiple jobs, most of them off the books. The lowest-paying job I held earned me $8 per hour—half of the legal minimum wage. I worked over 40 hours a week, more than double the legal limit for a student visa holder, while pursuing a full-time Master’s degree at Macquarie University. If anyone wants to come after me or my former employers now, well, there are no records.

Looking back, those hard-working days are some of my fondest memories. But what I really want to say is that every time I hear politicians or the media talk about poverty, homelessness, or the need for more welfare to support minority groups, it disgusts me.

Financially speaking, most Australians, whether rich or poor, are among the wealthiest 10% globally. Australia still enjoys a relatively free economy, with far less bureaucracy than most countries. Life here may not always be easy, but genuine poverty is rare unless one chooses to head down that path. I’ve often argued that a minimum wage is unnecessary; the market itself will set the minimum rate. In 2012-2013 I earned around $10 per hour, which many claimed was not a liveable wage. They were wrong. I survived through sheer hard work, labouring day and night, making muffins and donuts in the mornings, and working late shifts in restaurants. Not only did I survive, but I also managed to save. I bought my first car, a 1999 Toyota, for $1500 cash, and graduated in the top 10%.

Today, based on my conversations with small business owners, the market minimum wage is already close to $20 an hour, not far from the legal minimum. This is partly due to our poorly managed immigration system and disastrous COVID policies, both of which severely impacted labour markets.

A truly free market doesn’t need the government regulating wages, nor does it need laws dictating when a boss can or cannot contact employees (the so-called “right to disconnect”). Overly powerful, corrupt unions, under the guise of protecting workers, are suffocating the economy and severely limiting our freedom and productivity. In 2022 Australia ranked 16th out of 38 OECD countries in terms of labour productivity, and I would imagine we have further fallen behind in the last two years.

The sky was so blue, the air so fresh, and with every single breath I could smell freedom.

I’m genuinely grateful to all the employers who gave me opportunities when I was a freshly arrived young man with awkward spoken English and barely any life skills. I worked, I learned, and I built a future. After completing my studies and a few uninspiring professional experiences, I launched my career as a mortgage broker. I started as a one-man operation, and today lead an award-winning top national brokerage team with over 30 brokers. Regrettably, I seldom hire anyone onshore; instead, I employ people offshore, as I am unwilling to navigate Australia’s complex labour laws or take the risks that some of my previous employers did to create opportunities for young or unskilled workers.

The more I observe, the clearer it becomes that many laws and regulations are actively harming the economy. Take a recent example: NSW Revenue is attempting to apply payroll tax to companies like Uber and mortgage broking aggregators. The government despises self-employed people and businesses because they can’t control us. They want to grab every dollar they can from every hard-working individual who creates real value—whether it’s by driving a taxi or providing mortgage services.

Join Mailing List

In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, John Galt’s final speech warned of the collapse of society if entrepreneurs, creators, and employers were to go on strike. This is not far from the truth. Every time the government imposes another tax, another restriction, another regulation, they are pushing society closer to the brink. If innovators, business owners, and workers stop creating, producing, and striving for excellence, the whole system collapses.

We don’t need more welfare. We need a freer economy. We need more Milei and less Marx. Australia became a prosperous nation because of freedom, not because of regulations. The more the government meddles, the more it stifles the potential for everyone.

Over my 12 years in Australia, I’ve experienced moments of frustration—particularly with the country’s COVID policies and its tendency to copy the authoritarian policies of the nation I left behind. Despite these setbacks, I remain optimistic. I look forward to a future where Australia embraces more freedom, becoming the country I once dreamed of—a place that inspires and attracts those who cherish liberty.

Warren Wang

Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.

Was John Locke a Proto-Libertarian?

Jonathan Cole

11 November 2024

English philosopher John Locke is widely regarded as the father of liberalism. Libertarianism is a product of this liberal tradition, much to the embarrassment of today’s American liberal progressives who successfully coopted the term in the early twentieth century, irrevocably associating it with the Left.

However, if Locke was the progenitor of liberalism, and libertarianism is a branch in its tree, then the question arises: was Locke a proto-libertarian? (“Proto-libertarian” is the term used by Zwolinksi and Tomasi in The Individualists to describe foundational thinkers in the libertarian tradition who predate the emergence of the term).

Whether modern “liberal” states like Australia reflect the Lockean hope or the anarcho-capitalist fear regarding the security of property is well beyond the scope of this short essay.

The fact that those advocating small government, the sanctity of private property, the virtues of free market capitalism and genuine individual freedom (of the kind that allows people to do and say things that offend) can and do claim to be the true heirs of liberalism scandalises today’s self-described “liberals” who believe in redistributing wealth, constraining the evils of capitalism, enacting social justice and protecting citizens from “hate speech.” Libertarians, whether they recognise it or not, are party to a conflict over the legacy of Locke.

Locke, like all political philosophers of his day, began with the human being’s “state of nature,” which is to say assumptions about the fundamental nature of human existence before the emergence of society, government and the state—the human animal in its natural habitat, if you will. Locke believed that the human being’s state of nature was absolute freedom. “Man,” he maintained in the Second Treatise on Government (1690), was “absolute Lord of his own Person and Possession, equal to the greatest, and subject to no Body.” So far, so libertarian. The question, given this state of nature, was on what legitimate grounds any human being could willingly cede this absolute freedom to form society, with its structures of power, authority, law and government? If man is free, Locke asked, how could he “subject himself to the Dominion and Controul [sic] of any other Power?”

if Locke was the progenitor of liberalism, and libertarianism is a branch in its tree, then the question arises: was Locke a proto-libertarian?

Locke’s answer rests in property. In the state of nature, he observed, the human being was vulnerable to the “invasion of others.” As such, man’s “enjoyment of the property he has in this state [of nature] is very unsafe, very unsecure.” It is this insecurity, according to Locke, that led humans to form societies for the “mutual Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates.” Human beings, though absolutely free in the pre-societal state of nature, nonetheless surrender some of their freedom in order to secure their property. It is important to note that in this Lockean perspective property precedes the formation of society and the state, which is to say that it is a pre-political natural right. The Lockean state, therefore, exists specifically to safeguard the individual’s natural right to property.

At this point we run into controversy regarding the relationship of Locke’s justification for the state with libertarianism. Minarchists, of the classical liberal variety, are inclined to agree with Locke that the state, along with its coercive power, can be justified on the grounds of the protection of property, including the most valuable property, human life. On the other hand, the anarcho-capitalism finds itself in total opposition to this Lockean justification of the state. The rationale for forming a state in the Lockean schema is the threat posed to property by other human beings. In the anarcho-capitalist perspective, in contrast, it is in fact the state that poses the greatest threat to property rights, through its extractive and appropriative tendencies. Whether modern “liberal” states like Australia reflect the Lockean hope or the anarcho-capitalist fear regarding the security of property is well beyond the scope of this short essay. I merely note that Locke could scarcely have predicted, let alone conceived, that the European states of his day, with their weak administrative capacity, could evolve into the gargantuan authoritarian behemoths that we know today, with their ideological and technological capacity to regulate and monitor every domain of human life.

Join Mailing List

In any event, we will never know whether Locke would have embraced the label “libertarian” were he alive today. But his recognition of the essential pre-political human rights to freedom and property, along with his attempts to justify the existence of the state solely on the basis of securing its citizens’ property, are enough to warrant his description as a proto-libertarian, i.e., someone who tilled the soil out of which libertarianism was to grow more than three centuries later. What’s more, it seems unlikely that Locke would recognise what passes for “liberalism” today in America, and increasingly in Australia, as sharing and articulating the ethos of his political philosophy. Libertarianism may be a neologism born of the need to disassociate classical liberalism from the leftward drift of the term “liberalism” in the twentieth century, but its ideas have a long pre-history tracing back through English, French and American liberalism all the way to its source, more than three centuries ago, in John Locke. This should not be forgotten.

Jonathan Cole

Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”

Trump promised libertarians. Here we go!

Kenelm Tonkin

8 November 2024

As I write, the American Left’s echo chamber is strangely silent, no doubt stunned at the announcement.

Let’s set the scene: Across the swampy stench of Washington D.C., where the only things typically ‘efficient’ are the lobbyists’ ability to secure pork barrel projects, comes a revivifying breeze. It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket. Here’s Elon, not content with electric cars, interplanetary colonisation, and brain chips, deciding to take a crack at what might be his most Sisyphean task yet: making the government efficient.

Now, imagine the reactions. The Left, already on edge from Milei’s ‘Afuera!’ chants across the pond, are positively quivering. ‘Elon’s gone too far this time!’ and ‘Ron Paul will be the end of us!’ they’ll wail, as if expecting the sky to fall because someone dared to challenge the Deep State. They see visions of chainsaws to the bureaucratic red tape, of waste being not just reduced but annihilated. To them, it’s as if Musk has invited a von Mises vampire into the house of government – not because he’s inherently evil, but because he’s going to drain it of all its toxic, contagious blood.

This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government.

And you can understand why Elon might want to spice things up. He’s a libertarian now in all but having ‘I Love Hayek’ tattooed on his forehead. Consider his recent revelations. The government fined Space X $140,000 for the crime of spraying fresh water on his launching pad to cool the rockets on take-off. We’re talking Brownsville, Texas, which annually receives 700+ mm of fresh water just in rain alone but, no, Elon’s fresh water is an environmental disaster.

Then there was the ensnaring Catch-22 by the Kafkaesque bureaucracy. One law forced him into DEI hires of illegal immigrants while the other law bound him to only employ US citizens for defence security reasons. Cop that! Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. No wonder Elon’s now a libertarian and turned to the Grand-Poo-Bah of freedom fighters in the good doctor from Texas.

And why not? If you’ve ever tried to navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth of even Australian federal departments, you’ll understand why this might just be the revolution Americans need. Here’s Ron Paul, the man who once asked, ‘Where in the Constitution is there any authority for Congress to fund education?’, now potentially wielding the scalpel to slice through the Gordian Knot of government department duplication.

Consider this: the US has departments that could be triplets in their redundancy. There’s the Federal Department of Education, the State departments of education, and the local government school district departments. What the first two do, apart from employing teacher union reps, no one knows. And then there’s the US Department of Energy, which might as well be named the Department of Irony given its track record on energy efficiency. Both could do with a severe diet and who better than Dr Ron Paul, the perennial advocate for limited government, to serve up the meal plan?

It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket.

This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government. Elon Musk, with his penchant for first-principles thinking, might just be the catalyst needed to ask: Why do we have all these agencies? What are they actually achieving? And most importantly, do we need them at all?

Hell, government might get a new three-letter agency: KPI.

Oh, the fear and loathing this move will garner from the financially-affected Left. They will see this as the first domino leading to the end of civilisation as we know it, the sky will fall and we must warn the king and the rest of the town! They’re terrified of the idea that government might actually serve the people, not the bureaucrats. They envision a world where their pet projects might get the axe, where the gravy train of government waste might finally derail.

Gone, the mercantilism causing democratic drift. Gone the corporatism and consultants with their snouts in the troughs.

Join Mailing List

Yet, for those of us who dream of a government that functions with the precision of a Tesla assembly line, this is a moment of hope. If Ron Paul and Elon Musk can bring to the government the same disruptive innovation seen in SpaceX or Tesla, we might just see the start of a Great Revolution in America, resulting in a government that’s lean and, mostly, out of our lives.

All hinges on a Trumpian victory.

As we Australians watch the greatest spectacle on Earth, mindful of our observer-status but somehow still drawn like a moth to flame, let’s raise a glass to the potential end of American decline. And here’s to Elon, who operates by first principles, and Ron, as principled as they come and possibly entering his last act of public service. May these tenacious two be poised to make the Department of Government Efficiency not just a dream, but a reality.

Afuera!

This article first appeared in the Spectator Australia.

Kenelm Tonkin

An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.

Faulty Towers

Max Payne

6 November 2024

NIMBYism, building costs, consumer tastes, regulation and taxation will keep Victoria’s housing supply low, despite efforts from the Allan Government to power ahead with new developments.

Despite the best efforts of the Victorian Liberal Party, the political winds are indeed changing in Victoria, and Jacinta Allan has laid out her plan to rise from the ashes of a heavily indebted and incompetent government. The plan is currently three-fold:

Release new land for greenfield development
Adopt an Auckland-style relaxation of restrictions on subdivisions or development on existing blocks to encourage a proliferation of townhouses and granny flats
Most controversial – to develop various ‘activity centres’ within suburban Melbourne, including affordable high-density housing.

Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers.

We aren’t talking about large-scale social housing construction by government. The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria. However, those key groups are not really interested in building or buying affordable, high-density housing, no matter how good the location.

The Covid 19 pandemic, along with the work from home arrangements prompted by it, created a wave of demand for housing in regional/rural areas with larger blocks and dwellings, given the reduced value of city amenity while locked at home. As both the public and private sector attempt to re-establish on-site work, Allan hopes to revitalise Melbourne by concentrating new housing around transportation and employment hubs.

But the fact is, Australians don’t really like living in apartments or units. Indeed, if recent demonstrations in Brighton are anything to go by, we don’t like living anywhere near them! For years now, unit prices in cities such as Melbourne have virtually flatlined as supply has increased but demand has tapered off. The price of free-standing houses, on the other hand, has skyrocketed.

The cultural attitude towards apartments in general is one of suspicion. While houses and residential land are revered as sound investments, apartments are known to attract less capital growth, are expensive to own (strata fees, etc), and prone to defects. No matter how many trains go past a day, Australians will happily pay a premium for a detached house.

The policy is very much an open invitation to developers and homebuyers in Victoria.

But what really brings Labor’s proposal to its knees is the economics of building high density housing. Developers are facing increased material and labour costs due to inflation and competition from major government infrastructure projects, while also navigating a myriad of regulations and taxes. As a result, apartment blocks are typically developed for the boutique and high-end market. Affordable high-density housing simply isn’t worth it in the current economic environment.

As for greenfield sites, they have issues of their own – not least that Allan’s proposal will see many future sites not delivered for another decade. Basic road, water and sewerage infrastructure costs are higher, and increasingly Melbourne is eating into its nearby food bowl and placing new residents at the mercy of increased fire and flood risk at the urban fringe.

Perhaps the silver lining is in middle suburban townhouses – less objectional to nearby residents, attractive to prospective buyers and profitable for developers. This approach will allow for controlled infill – not flooding existing suburbs with hordes of new residents but still making better use of existing infrastructure and space.

Join Mailing List

Allan’s government and other Labor divisions have sensed the need to differentiate themselves as the party which will genuinely increase housing supply, whilst labelling any opposition from the Greens and Liberals as ‘blocking’. If the recent Queensland election results are anything to go by, the strategy might be a cunning one in metropolitan seats.

However, if Allan is serious about adding new supply to Melbourne’s housing stock, she ought to ask herself why she has made Victoria the most unattractive state for housing and business investment in the country. Only by removing onerous property, land, and windfall gains taxes, easing the regulatory burden on new builds and slowing their bungled infrastructure program, could she hope to actually stimulate new home building.

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

The Greatest Threat to Democracy

James Hol

4 November 2024

As 5 November fast approaches, anti-Trump rhetoric is reaching nauseating levels.

Democrats and the media – but I repeat myself – have made the central focus of their 2024 campaign about how Donald Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy” in history. They claim the 45^th President is a tyrannical dictator-in-waiting, but forget one thing: he was the 45^th President.

During Trump’s presidency, he had ample opportunity to become the totalitarian dictator the left so badly wants him to be, yet his record was exactly the opposite.

TRUMP THE PEACEMAKER

While Trump often claims he is the only President in the last 72 years not to be involved in war, this is not exactly true. However, he did not meaningfully engage in military conflict during his term.

The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them.

Technically, the power for the US to declare war rests solely with Congress. A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force. This is how “conflicts” such as the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan wars occurred without proper, constitutionally required, authorisation – even though they were full-scale wars and are always referred to as wars.

Other presidents have also been heavily involved in the escalation of foreign conflicts, the current Administration’s heavy financing of Ukraine being one such example. Trump, on the other hand, used the military sparingly but effectively and demanded other countries pay for US protection – creating a financial disincentive for war. Trump’s only real use of the military was quickly cleaning up the ISIS conflict he inherited.

While Trump may have been involved in military engagements, he certainly tops the list as the most peaceful US President since World War II.

TRUMP THE DEMOCRAT

A common theme among dictators is the centralisation and concentration of power. Trump has been an advocate of states’ rights, pledging “to make states the laboratories of democracy once again” during his 2017 inauguration speech. During his Administration’s Covid response, he largely allowed the states to handle their own policies. During a time when most political leaders looked to seize power, he sought to relinquish it.

But where Trump advanced states’ rights most was in his many judicial appointments: appointing judges and justices who recognised the policy-making power that resided in the hands of the states. One consequence of this was in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned the faulty premise that prevented states from regulating abortion.

Contrary to popular belief, Roe v Wade had little to do with abortion and everything to do with states’ rights. No matter your view on abortion, if the Constitution says it is subject to state regulation, that’s what the Supreme Court should confirm.

When it comes to executive orders, Trump averaged 55 per year, far more than the one or less per year of the first six presidents but a lot less than the 307 per year that Franklin D. Roosevelt – who is an often-highly regarded President – averaged. Even the much-beloved John F. Kennedy averaged 75 executive orders per year. Neither of those men are referred to as dictators.

In fact, Trump’s use of executive orders sits almost exactly on the average of all presidents combined, which includes the early presidents who signed almost none. That’s nowhere near the level you would expect of someone with dictatorial tendencies.

2020 HINDSIGHT

But what about the 2020 Election? That is where Trump showed his true colours, according to his haters. And while Trump certainly is not the most gracious loser, he was completely within his rights to question and contest the legitimacy of the results: it is the right of all political participants. Hilary Clinton did it in 2016 and Al Gore did it in 2000 – both Democrats.

The difference between Hilary Clinton’s denial of the 2016 results and Donald Trump’s denial of the 2020 results is that Trump was right: the 2020 election was rigged.

The traditional media, social media and the FBI teamed up to ensure the Hunter Biden laptop story never saw the light of day before the election. Had that story been given its proper coverage, or even just not suppressed – people were literally prevented from posting about it on Twitter and other social media platforms – we would have likely seen a different result. If that isn’t rigging an election, someone tell me what is. Let’s not even get into the fact that several states used widespread mail-in ballot voting without the proper legislative approval to do so.

FELONY OUTRAGE

But Donald Trump is a convicted felon! How could anyone support that, the indoctrinated say, while simultaneously claiming that Trump is out to imprison his political opponents without a shred of irony.

Trump was not convicted of paying “hush money” to a pornstar, there is no crime in a non-disclosure agreement. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of incorrectly filling out business documents, a misdemeanour offence in New York meriting a similar punishment to a speeding fine or other trivial traffic offence.

The New York District Attorney (NYDA) managed to convince 12 New York progressives that it was a felony by nebulously claiming that Trump incorrectly completed the business forms in order to commit another crime; it was not necessary for the NYDA to actually indicate what that other crime was, nor for the jurors agree on that other crime. Not to mention, the NYDA relied solely on the evidence of Michael Cohen, a disgruntled former Trump employee with an axe to grind.

A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force.

Had it been any other person, the NYDA would have settled for a misdemeanour offence, if they had even bothered to prosecute it at all.

FACISMO AMERICANO

Finally, the pièce de resistance of the anti-Trump rhetoric: he is a Nazi. The kind of opposition that, if repeated often enough, might just lead someone to be justified in taking a shot at him. I mean, we’d all kill Hitler, right?

I don’t have enough words to debunk every single instance where Democrats, or their media allies, have called Trump a Nazi, so I will focus on the most recent: Trump held a rally at Madison Square Garden. So what is the connection? Well, in 1939, a group of American Nazis also held a rally there and, well, that’s it. What’s more, Madison Square Garden actually moved location in 1968, so Trump’s rally was not even at the same location as the 1939 Nazi rally.

Even before the rally had begun, mainstream media pundits were flapping their jowls with disgust, drawing comparisons between the 1939 rally. I wonder if these same propagandists are as concerned that Andrea Bocelli is scheduled to hold Nazi concerts there in just over a month. And these propagandists must be shocked to learn that the New York Knicks plan to host 38 Nazi games there over the upcoming NBA season; maybe they should rename them the Nazi Knicks.

Join Mailing List

VOTE TRUMP

The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them. Looking back on pre-politics Trump, who was often portrayed in a positive light, seems like another time completely. And there will be a time when propagandists will point to Trump as being “not so bad after all”, like they do with George W. Bush now – even though they said similar things about him during his presidency.
Given the Libertarian Party has failed to nominate a libertarian candidate and Robert F. Kennedy Jr has dropped out of the race (although he will still appear on the ballot in many states, including the key states of Michigan and Wisconsin), I urge all American readers to vote Trump this Tuesday. Don’t stay home: vote.

James Hol

While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.

Breaking the Adoption Taboo

Bob Day

30 October 2024

Over 40,000 Australian children are currently in government-sponsored care. Approximately 30,000 have been there for more than 2 years. Less than 200 were adopted.

The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

Compared with similar countries Australia has very low rates of adoption.

It seems the chief barrier to increasing the rate of adoptions in Australia are state and territory government child protection authorities. In South Australia, for example, the inquest into the death of toddler Chloe Valentine revealed the abject squalor of the environment the child was forced to endure – an environment authorities were well aware of.

The best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems

An anti-adoption culture appears to be ingrained in state and territory child protection authorities.

Jeremy Sammut, from the Centre for Independent Studies, has written extensively on this issue*. He summarises the situation as follows:

“Australia’s child-protection system keeps applying the same, flawed strategies which basically means children are harmed by the very system that’s meant to protect them. It puts an over-emphasis on family preservation prolonging the time children are kept with highly dysfunctional families. When, as a last resort, they are finally removed they are churned through unstable foster care and returned to their families where the reunification is likely to break down. For many children, they spend almost all of their childhood and adolescence in care and never get a permanent and safe family for life. Many of these children could have, should have, been adopted.”

19^th Century English philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill was one of the first to declare that “Children have independent rights as future citizens. If parents fail in their obligations to fulfil those rights, then the State should step in.”

Regrettably, the rights of abusive parents seem to outweigh the rights of abused children.

It has been 50 years since the introduction of the single mother’s pension by the Whitlam Government. This policy helped end the practice of forced adoption as the provision of taxpayer-funded income support gave women who became pregnant out of wedlock the option of keeping their children.

The unintended consequence, however, is that welfare for single mothers has led to the very social problems forced adoptions were designed to prevent – the inability of many single mothers to properly care for their children.

The right to welfare became a pathway to welfare dependency which has contributed significantly to the scale of the child protection crisis confronting Australia today.

In South Australia last month, a bill was introduced into the parliament requiring that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy after 28 weeks not euthanize the child and induce it stillborn, but deliver it alive.

After 28 weeks, with proper care, babies are viable outside the womb.

The bill did not prevent women from terminating their pregnancies, it only insisted that if a woman decided to terminate her pregnancy after 28 weeks, the baby must be born alive, not euthanized and be born dead.

The first question that must be asked is, ‘Why are so many children cycled in and out of government care?’ And second, ‘Why are there so few adoptions in Australia?’

Presumably, as the woman was planning to abort the child, giving the child to a loving couple to adopt would not be opposed. This would have given rise to a significant number of new adoptions.

The bill was defeated 10 votes to 9 in South Australia’s Upper House.

As a woman’s ‘right to choose’ a termination was not being compromised, why anyone would oppose saving the life of the child when it was going to be aborted anyway is beyond me.

In 2019, the Federal Government’s House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Report, ‘Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children’, stated that the best interests of children should be at the centre of child protection systems.

Five years later, little has changed.

Join Mailing List

For children who are unable to live with their biological parents, adoption has been internationally proven as the best way to provide a safe, stable and loving family life.

While it has been argued that adoption robs children of their identity, modern ‘open adoption’ models which are specifically designed to maintain children’s connections to their cultural heritage and birth families disprove such claims.

It has also been claimed that adoption will steal children all over again. Again, NSW adoption reforms disprove such claims.

The perception that adoption is a socially unacceptable and illegitimate practice based on past practices such as forced adoptions and indigenous experiences must end. There can be no meaningful change or end to the cycle of intergenerational dysfunction until that taboo is broken.

*Dr Jeremy Sammut is the author of several research papers and the book, ‘The Madness of Australian Child Protection: Why Adoption will Rescue Australia’s Underclass Children’. His research influenced reforms which were passed in 2018 by the NSW Parliament.

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Bacon Sandwiches, Sausage Sizzles and Red Tape

Jess Colby

25 October 2024

On Saturday the 5^th 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 8^th 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 18^th 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 18^th of October 2024.

NR: No response as of the 18^th 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 Area	State	Separate permit required to serve bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread	Notes
City of Adelaide	SA	Inc
City of Burnside	SA	No	Must be under same marque or kitchen to use same permit to be covered under same notification
City of Campbeltown	SA	Inc	Told to contact Eastern Health Authority
City of Charles Sturt	SA	Inc	Likely yes
Town of Gawler	SA	No
Town of Walkerville	SA	NR
Adelaide Hills Council	SA	Inc	Given a list of people to contact

City of Marion	SA	No
City of Mitcham	SA	Inc	Likely yes but not 100% sure
City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters	SA	NR
City of Onkaparinga	SA	No
City of Playford	SA	Inc
City of Prospect	SA	Inc
City of Salisbury	SA	No
City of Tea Tree Gully	SA	No

City of Unley	SA	No
City of West Torrens	SA	No
Mid Murrey Council	SA	No
City of Port Augusta	SA	No
City of Port Lincoln	SA	No
Flinders Ranges Council	SA	No
District Council of Mount Barker	SA	No	As 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 Council	SA	NR

District Council of Loxton Waikerie	SA	NR
District Council of Grant	SA	NR
Roxby Council	SA	No	Need FBN number
City of Hobart	TAS	No
Tasman Council	TAS	No
North Canberra Community Council	ACT	Inc	Told to contact Access Canberra
City of Darwin	NT	Inc	Told to contact Northern Territory Health Department
Alice Springs Town Council	NT	Inc	Was 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 Perth	WA	NR
City of Bunbury	WA	No
City of Greater Geraldton	WA	No
City of Rockingham	WA	No	Sausage sizzles need one permit that includes both bacon sandwiches and sausages in bread
Shire of Broome	WA	No
Brisbane City Council	QLD	No
Sunshine Coast Council	QLD	NR
Cairnes Regional Council	QLD	NR

City of Townsville	QLD	No	Need a separate permit for every separate food stand
City of Melbourne	VIC	Yes
Yarra City Council	VIC	No
Maribyrnong City Council	VIC	Yes
Whitehorse City Council	VIC	NR
City of Greater Geelong	VIC	NR
City of Greater Bendigo	VIC	No
West Wimmera Shire Council	VIC	Yes

Join Mailing List

Mildura Rural City Council	VIC	NR
City of Sydney	NSW	N/A	Food cannot be sold be sold at community events or protests in Sydney
Georges River Council	NSW	Inc
Waverly Council	NSW	Inc
City of Wagga Wagga	NSW	No
Broken Hill City Council	NSW	No
City of Wollongong	NSW	No
Dubbo Regional Council	NSW	Inc	Was told in the final email that ‘there is no such thing as a permit’ ???

Jess Colby

Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.

I’ve got a little list

David Leyonhjelm

23 October 2024

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.

Join Mailing List

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.

David Leyonhjelm

Know Thy Enemy

James Hol

14 October 2024

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.

Join Mailing List

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.

James Hol

Enemy of the state

Gerardine Hoogland

27 September 2024

The clothes we wear may change, but the virtues and vices of mankind do not.

As a historian of ancient Rome, I am in awe of the vast and rich sourcebook of knowledge it offers to guide us on what to heed and what to avoid. Yet it appears that those we elect, rule over us with no regard for what we think, as they wield the proverbial sword of what they call justice.

The warnings from the Australian government to the people around the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are reminiscent of the treatment meted out to those who dared to criticise rulers in ancient Rome; the caveat being that brutality of the highest order is not in play here.

However, this Bill comes on the back of four years of politicians instilling fear into the population, so it is not a standalone government edict. I argue that it is the trigger for the final battle in protecting our liberties and freedoms.

Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation

We were warned in no uncertain terms by state premiers that the virus would “hunt down the unvaccinated”, and if we continued to ignore the dictates from on high, Senator Jacqui Lambie was there to warn that the government would come after us “lock, stock and barrel” unless we complied.

Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live. Now, they are being primed to accept the most illiberal piece of legislation imaginable. And they will achieve this not just with help from the scaremongering media, but through hopes of raising an army of civilian snitches.

When Lucius Cornelius Sulla was made consul in the early 80s BC and, later, dictator with the goal to restore the Roman Republican constitution, he told the people that if they obeyed him, he would introduce changes that would benefit them all. Should they decide not to, then punishment would be swift and savage.

Those he considered enemies, or friends of enemies, were put on public proscription lists. In addition, he added a statement “detailing a prize for killers, rewards for informers, and penalties for concealment.”

Guilt by association also copped a severe punishment:

“Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation, and there were actually cases of condemnation for showing sympathy or merely travelling in company with a suspect.”

The result of his unadulterated power?

Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live.

“He took sole charge of shaping all the political institutions of the state in the way he wanted. For there was no longer any talk of laws, or elections, or sortition, since everybody was quaking with fear and lying low or keeping silent.”

Forty years later, a group of three – the infamous triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus – conspired to punish their enemies in their quest for vengeance following the assassination of Julius Caesar.

They prepared a list in private, and even traded names of friends and foes of one another, surrendering their own relatives if necessary.

“These included brothers and uncles of the men who proscribed them and of their subordinates, if they had done anything to offend the leaders or these subordinates.”

Join Mailing List

In principle, what is the difference of intent between 80 BC and 2024 AD?

The Roman consuls proscribed those who offended them through brutal means, as was the order of the day. Our leadership designs legislation to incriminate us if we dare to offend them.

The intent remains the same – to silence anyone with a different view.
The lesson here is more for the ordinary person than the egotistical politician, for they already know the rulebook inside out – how to manipulate the population. We, as people who merely want to live our lives in relative peace, must harness a sense of courage to stand against the machinery of an overbearing government, even if it means earning the moniker of being an enemy of the state.

Gerardine Hoogland

Gerardine is a Roman historian, with specific interest in Rome’s foundation up to the end of the Republic. She advocates that history gifts us with wisdom for the mind and nourishment for the soul, and keenly defends the ancients’ legacy of civic society, law, and government.

How much should we pay our pollies?

David Leyonhjelm

23 September 2024

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.

Join Mailing List

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.

David Leyonhjelm

We are Family

Max Payne

20 September 2024

The family unit is a core tenet of a functioning free society. A strong, stable family environment provides a much-needed buffer against the encroachment of government dependence – a difficult bond to break.

As mainstream media finally begins to report on the potential impact of falling birth rates around the world, the blame is laid squarely at cost of living and the lack of financial stability experienced by those of child-bearing age. The cost of housing is chiefly to blame here, but the broader cost of living leaves young Australians chained to their careers and busy lifestyles. Without a stable financial base, people in their reproductive years are putting off the decision to have children.

Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies but, in reality, government policy is increasingly hostile to building strong families.

Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families.

Let’s begin by making one thing clear: subsidies for childcare are not a ‘family positive’ initiative. Parents cannot build strong families while raising their children is outsourced to daycare centres on the taxpayer dime. What these subsidies actually do is incentivise ‘workplace participation’ – hailed by activists as a metric of gender equality, but only really loved by big spending governments which rely heavily on income tax to fund their agendas.

The attack on genuine family time is mounted on other fronts too – with early childhood education increasingly touted as a necessary step in development, which by implication cannot be fulfilled at home. What’s more, state governments (which originally initiated Covid lockdowns) are now rushing to walk back public sector WFH arrangements to save the CBDs from their own policies! Thus, parents facing high cost of living are told their children need expensive early education and must not work from home. What choice do they have?

Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies

So what can be done? First, it’s time to bring back income splitting, where the combined income of a married couple is ‘split’ for tax purposes, which can be leveraged by a single household earner to reduce their tax obligations. While tax policy continues to punish higher earning sole providers while incentivising dual income arrangements, children will continue to miss crucial time with their parents at home.

Second, major reforms to childcare and the wider education system must be initiated. Childcare should be largely deregulated; the escalating cost is not providing improved value but is an increasing burden on families and taxpayers. Tax credits should be available to families who opt out of government funded schools as well, encouraging homeschool arrangements.

Join Mailing List

Finally, massive spending and spiralling red tape at all levels of government must be reigned in, as they are fuelling the cost of living crisis that is crippling families. Ever increasing regulation on building codes, the drip feed of land supply and minimum standards for rental properties are drying up housing supply when more are desperately needed. Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families, while increased spending drives inflation, sending mortgage repayments, utilities, food and fuel costs higher than wage rises. Who would want to start a family in that environment?

There can be no growth to our society if the family unit is being so critically undermined. How can we expect to raise a generation of independent thinkers and self sufficient upstarts if we can only afford to hand them over to the government while we work all day? If we can afford to have them at all.

Max Payne

Use a VPN, but don’t stop there

Simon Anderson

16 September 2024

The socialist government of Anthony Albanese is, once again, proposing legislation to de-anonymise, monitor and censor the Internet. From across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand I can smell the American eKaren Julie Inman Grant’s enthusiasm for this sort of authoritarian crackdown.

As always the justification amounts to “Please! Won’t Someone Think of The Children!”, along with misdirections concerning child safety and insulating young minds from dangerous misinformation and disinformation. Coded language that really means truths that are inconvenient obstacles for leftist narratives.

Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new. Leftists in Western democracies have been endeavouring to implement them for decades. The problem has been public resistance, with opponents able to point to China and its Great Firewall as a handy example of how such initiatives enable totalitarianism.

There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught

A massive public relations campaign has been underway across the West for many years, conducted by western governments, aligned NGOs and supra-national organisations such as the WEF, attempting to sway public opinion against the maintenance of civil liberties across the Internet. A recent example is the coordinated attacks upon Elon Musk’s 𝕏 platform, which has largely refused to comply with government demands for censorship and state surveillance of 𝕏 users: censorship and surveillance to which other social media platforms such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook have been only too willing to comply.

Musk’s intransigence has attracted the ire of the authoritarian elites across the world, and not just Australia’s petulant eKaren Julie Inman Grant. From European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton’s jackboot demands for 𝕏 to comply with oppressive provisions of the bloc’s Digital Service (DSA) Act through Brazil’s Justice Alexandre de Moraes banning 𝕏 altogether in the country at the behest of the ruling leftist regime, to French president Emmanuel Macron luring Telegram CEO Pavel Durov to France so he could be arrested, the social media platforms allowing resistance to state censorship and surveillance have been put on notice.

Nonetheless, the attacks on the social media giants are a sideshow. The leftist elites are well aware that compliance by the social media companies does not solve the underlying issue of users themselves circumventing surveillance and censorship on platforms simply by moving to alternative platforms that refuse to comply.

We’re seeing this already as frustrated users flee Facebook en masse for platforms that don’t block their content and suspend their accounts when they post about Hunter Biden’s transgressions. The more adventurous migrate to decentralised platforms (or federated as the terminology goes) that don’t even have a corporation behind them for governments to bully. Remember MySpace? When one social media platform loses prominence, another rises to take its place.

The solution is to impose surveillance and censorship at the source rather than the destination: the users themselves. The preferred approach of the leftist elites is to impose technological restrictions and then to enact punitive punishments against those who circumvent them. Brazil has implemented this, with users caught using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to access banned sites such as 𝕏 facing fines of up to $US9,800 per infraction. China employs a similar technology/legislation regime though the punishments meted out to transgressors are considerably worse.

What is a citizen opposed to this totalitarian crackdown on basic civil liberties to do? In a democracy the true solution lies at source: cease voting for leftwing political parties that promulgate and promote this hateful ideology. But if you happen to live under such a government such as Australia, there are technical mitigations available too. In recent days I’ve heard chatter similar to “just use a VPN. Everyone will have a VPN app installed on their device in two minutes” to bypass restrictions. It’s not that simple.

Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new.

VPNs are great and everyone should use one. They are a trivially easy method of routing your traffic through another country, one with a better commitment to fundamental human rights. The problem is that VPNs are also trivially easy to detect. Detection by the state -such as in Brazil and China- is rapidly followed by state enforcement. I have heard sotto voce that the Australian Labor party intends such a ban on VPNs. Bring on the organ harvesting.

Fortunately for Aussies, people living under other repressive regimes have developed solutions. Technical advances from those on the side of freedom against the enforcement mechanisms of the leftists are in the ascendency, though it must be said there is no such thing as perfect security. The technique with the most value is obfuscation, a method of giving VPN traffic the appearance of being a different type of traffic, making it far more difficult to detect. The most mature and readily-available suite of sophisticated tools to obfuscate Internet traffic is the Tor network, a component of which the leftist elites endeavour to scare you about by using the bogeyman term Dark Net.

Tor works by bouncing traffic from ingress nodes through intermediary nodes to exits nodes back onto the Surface Internet in order to obfuscate the origin, meaning the user. This comes at the cost of additional latency but Tor has an equally valuable feature: the facility to obfuscate the type of traffic with pluggable transports, better known as bridges. Two of the most popular are OBFS4 bridges running on Tor relays and Snowflake, which operates as a simple peer-to-peer browser extension. Alongside VPNs, both of these are technologies Australians would be well advised to utilise.

Join Mailing List

In the escalating technology war against Internet civil liberties, advances in AI analysis of obfuscated traffic poses the most critical risk. A simple VPN may suffice for Australian Internet users and I recommend using one. Tor is the next step up and you should start using that too. It’s available for all platforms and devices.

There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught: following in the footsteps of other oppressive regimes the Australian Labor government is likely to discourage circumvention through VPNs and Tor with punitive penalties.

And as I alluded earlier, technology is merely mitigation. The solution is to vote the nasty bastards enacting these attacks upon civil liberties out of office.

Simon Anderson

Simon Anderson is a technology consultant from Auckland, New Zealand. He believes in the fundamental right of all people to exercise their democratic rights peacefully, particularly with regard to free speech. Simon came into public consciousness as a video-documentarian during the trans rights counter protests in Auckland during March 2023.

Why We Should Oppose Government Efforts to Age Restrict Social Media

Jess Colby

13 September 2024

There are increasing efforts to mandate age restrictions for social media. These efforts have occurred at federal level with a proposed minimum age of 16, and in Victoria with a proposed minimum age of 14 with parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. My home state of South Australia is also considering something similar.

This legislation is motivated by concerns about some of the negative effects of social media use on teenage mental health. I do not believe this type of legislation is the right solution to the problem and that it constitutes government overreach. I am concerned about its effects on civil liberties and internet privacy along with how it may be implemented.

My first major concern is the effect on internet privacy. In the event that such legislation is strictly enforced, social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia. This will severely compromise internet anonymity, which is important as it allows people to more openly discuss uncomfortable but important issues and protects the identities of people who are at risk of political persecution.

Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility

This is of particular concern given the increasing trend in Commonwealth countries of people being arrested for saying things online related to hot button political topics or that for some reason have been deemed offensive.

There is also the issue of data privacy. Forcing people to hand over their ID involves the disclosure of sensitive personal data which could then be exposed in a data leak, stolen by hackers, or sold to third parties by the social media company itself.

My second major concern is that such a law takes choice out of the hands of parents and increases government interference in the lives of families. All teenagers are different, and some are more mature than others. The decision to engage on social media should be made by parents, not the government.

Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility. When some parents are asked why they don’t restrict social media for their children despite complaining about it, the conversation seems to go like this:

Parent: I’m concerned that social media is harming my child’s mental health.

Me: Why don’t you stop them from using social media or restrict its use?

Parent: No. I can’t do that. I want my child to fit in and be popular!!!

Me in my head: WTF?

My third major concern is that the policy may have unintended consequences. Like many things, social media has both good and bad aspects, with the bad aspects more pronounced when used excessively. However, social media also allows people to interact with others regardless of how far away they are and to connect with like-minded people.

This can be particularly beneficial to teenagers who live in remote communities, have family that lives far away, seek a family group chat, want to let the world know what is happening in their communities, or for some reason have limited opportunities to socialise in person.

For example, I recently had a friend who was committed to a psych ward. Social media allowed us to talk to each other when I couldn’t visit and outside of visiting hours. A policy of restricting social media would create a government-imposed one-size-fits -all approach affecting all teenagers that will not work for all. Such a policy simply doesn’t distinguish between excessive and moderate social media use.

Social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia.

My fourth major concern is what the government defines as social media. Not all social media is the same. I personally have Facebook, Discord and Signal. All these apps function differently despite falling under the umbrella of social media.

Facebook mandates that people use their real name to create a profile. On Facebook you can create both public and private events, comment on things publicly, message people privately, and a range of other things. On Discord, you create a username and then can message people and join private and semi-public groups.

Signal works like text messaging, but you can create group chats and relies on the internet rather than phone data. Signal does not have public pages like Facebook. As someone who intends to become a parent in the future, I would approach all these apps differently and allow them each at different ages.

Join Mailing List

I would also like to point out that many social media sites already have age restrictions. Facebook, for example, requires a minimum age to join of 13. There are also apps that you can get on phones and computers that limit social media use or block certain sites.

Given this, I believe the best alternative solution to this legislation would be increased parental responsibility surrounding social media, and social and societal support for parents who choose to limit excessive teen social media use.

Jess Colby

Whose Ethics make it Ethical

David Leyonhjelm

11 September 2024

When I started my business 35 years ago, very few investment funds were describing themselves as ethical investors.

Some years later I joined an organisation of CEOs, business owners and senior executives that meets to share and discuss their challenges. I enjoyed our meetings right up until my group was required to listen to a speaker on ethics. When I asked for a definition of ethics and who decides what is ethical, I was told I was out of order. Not long after that I was asked to leave the group.

Some funds then began describing themselves as sustainable investors. I wrote a column about it, asking who defines sustainable, and has anyone ever knowingly invested in a company that was unsustainable? There were letters to the editor criticising me.

It then became ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance. Still seeking definitions, I found it supposedly incorporates sustainable investing, responsible investing, impact investing and socially responsible investing.

Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better.

I also found a claim that ESG criteria can “help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.” That sounded like the focus was on financial performance, which is good, but in fact it was not the case. The more I looked, the more I found it was all just virtue signalling.

Then came DEI, or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, which is all about how many women, black or disabled people are on the payroll. Not just virtue signalling, but bragging about it.

Funds that differentiate themselves like this are motivated by the desire to attract more investors and generate more fees for their managers. Furthermore, very few of those choosing to invest in these funds are using their own money; both the fund managers and their investors are deciding what is ethical or sustainable using other people’s money.

The problem is, most ESG funds deliver lower returns to investors. And, as I discovered, they don’t agree with each other about what it all means, and also don’t much like being questioned.

As it happens, I am an investor of my own money and regard myself as both ethical and sustainable. Moreover, I have no difficulty offering coherent definitions.

My favourite definition comes from former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who said, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. In my view that’s also ethical.

As to what it means in practice, here are a few thoughts.

I will never reject an investment in coal unless there are better nuclear or hydro options, delivering cheaper and more reliable power. It is not sustainable to subject the community to the vagaries of expensive and intermittent wind and solar power, and it is grossly unethical to compel families in India to continue burning cow manure for fuel or force children to do their homework in the dark.

I will absolutely invest in forestry. Not only is it renewable, in Australia it is also totally sustainable. When the alternatives are importing timber from other countries or building in steel and concrete, it’s no contest.

Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better. Genetically modified crops, modern herbicides, precision farming and minimum or zero tillage are not only sustainable but also boost yields, leaving more land for conservation. There is absolutely nothing ethical about staying rooted in the past, using out-dated technology to produce food that some people cannot afford to buy.

Help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.

Some ethical funds say they refuse to invest in companies that harm animals, by which they mean those that use animals to determine whether pharmaceuticals or cosmetics adversely affect humans. By what ethical standard is it preferable to expose our loved ones to the risk of life-threatening or disfiguring harm?

As for things like tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, these are matters of personal choice. Whatever we might think of them, the ethical approach is to not interfere in the choices of others. I’d happily invest in them if the returns were adequate. And if it means protecting liberal democracy from authoritarianism, I’d certainly consider it ethical to invest in armament companies.

That leaves a fairly small unethical and unsustainable list. Anything that funds or apologises for terrorism, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamism or corruption is on it. I’m also wary of companies that foster a woke culture; not only are they hypocrites but ‘go woke, go broke’ is more than a slogan.

Join Mailing List

But that’s just me – I don’t expect others to necessarily share my views, although it’s clear that an increasing number of people seem to be doing just that. For those with control over their own money, my suggestion is to simply invest in businesses that offer the best returns, and ignore those that virtue signal. You can then use the dividends or capital gains to help make a difference based on your own values.

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

David Leyonhjelm

Resisting centralist power – Part 3

Bob Day

6 September 2024

In a speech entitled, Rebuilding the Federation, Richard Court, then Premier of Western Australia, described the tide of centralism as follows:

“All the things that the States do best are under attack from the empire builders in Canberra. The bureaucracy running the Federal education system, as you know, is large but it doesn’t teach any students. There is an equally large health bureaucracy which doesn’t treat any patients.”

Court went on to make the point that the Constitution recognised that State governments were better placed to respond to local priorities.

Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations.

The States are left with constitutional responsibility for education, health, housing, law and order, commerce and industry, transport, and natural resources including land and essential services. But Court noted that, with the help of the High Court, the Commonwealth now has almost complete control in some of these areas.

Benefits of Federalism

Those who live in the major population centres on Australia’s eastern seaboard may not understand the importance of local decision making in the same way that those who live in the regions and smaller States do. In a country as large and diverse as Australia it is very difficult for a political administration and bureaucracy based in a distant national capital to take full account of, and understand, the interests and needs of local communities.

As a principle not only of government, but also of life, the best decisions are taken when all the parties to the decision know and understand the issues intimately. A federalist approach that seeks to allow States to exercise power in making decisions on local matters is infinitely better than centralised decisions at a distance. Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

Economic Benefits

The Productivity Commission has outlined the competitive benefits of federalism in improving performance in the Australian economy, saying:

“The competitive dimension of federalism, which provides in-built incentives for governments to perform better across a variety of areas, is operating well.”

There is an inherent competitiveness between the States that should be encouraged. State governments have a vital role to play in creating the right environment to attract and retain capital. We live in a global market environment in which competition between States will only serve to make each of them more efficient.

Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

By competitiveness, however, I mean real low cost, light regulation efficiency competitiveness, not taxpayer funded inducements to lure business from one State to another.

Perhaps the most valuable attribute of successful federations is the way in which they lead to a disbursement of power that fosters democracy and restrains corruption and abuse. While the division of powers among the stakeholders may cause frustration for those who desire an unfettered capacity to determine the course of events, it does introduce important checks and balances to the political process.

There is a creative tension that comes from the consensus building required to make a federation work, in the longer term serving both the individual and common interest.

Join Mailing List

Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations. The reason I am such a committed federalist is because it is by far the best way to govern a large and diverse country like Australia; far better than its alternative, centralism – power and law making centralised in one place.

Whilst it may seem counter-intuitive that six (or even eight), separate State service providers could be more efficient and cost effective than one big, centralized service provider, it is true nonetheless.

Got something to say?

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

Bob Day

Windfall?

Max Payne

21 August 2024

The Guardian recently said the quiet part out loud – the Coalition’s pivot towards nuclear energy is scaring away the big money that is backing renewables.

That’s right, the mere fact that the Federal Opposition (who aren’t fancied to win the next election mind you) has proposed nuclear energy for Australia is enough to put investors off backing renewable projects. And yes, we are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.

While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables.

We are constantly told that Australia is ripe for renewable energy – be it solar, wind or hydro. But the truth of the matter is that without unequivocal bi-partisan legislative support, private capital is unwilling to back projects even against the prospect of competition. That should tell you everything you need to know about the reality of the economics of renewables.

The Investor Group on Climate Change reported that ‘more than one’ major investor had decided to hold off on future investment decisions in Australia. General sentiment was that investors would prefer to back projects in jurisdictions with bi-partisan political support for a renewables-led transition to net-zero.

What is clear from these developments is that investing in renewable technology is not a vote of confidence in how the projects stack up. Rather, it’s simply an attempt to bet on government-backed guarantees, and once that guarantee is potentially threatened the investors flee.

We are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.

To play devil’s advocate, nuclear technology may potentially suffer from similar issues. Due to the high upfront costs and long lead times of nuclear energy projects, even strong advocates of the technology freely admit that significant public funding would be needed to get projects off the ground and to induce private investment. It is unclear how competitive nuclear energy might be in the new energy market as well – would investors expect legislative guarantees to ensure returns?

Join Mailing List

What is clear though, is that the threat of (or lack of) government intervention in the energy marketplace is destroying investor confidence. Be it renewables, potentially nuclear, or the ridiculous net-zero targets that are annihilating investment confidence in coal and gas, the sources that actually do the heavy lifting in the energy market.

While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables. They aren’t betting on the tech, or on a technologically robust transition to net-zero. They are betting on a government guarantee to ensure their returns.

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

Max Payne

A Nation of Takers

David Leyonhjelm

14 August 2024

One of the many inequities of Australia’s welfare system is the exclusion of family homes from the means test. Recipients of age or disability pensions can own houses worth millions of dollars while remaining eligible for pensions funded by the taxes of people who cannot afford to buy a house at all.

In private, many politicians agree that excluding the family home leads to unfair consequences. However, neither side of politics is willing to change it. There are simply too many Australians who insist they are entitled to a pension.

It is much the same with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It is widely known to be extensively rorted, with scheme providers charging participants several times what they charge non-participants for the same service. It is also well known that many people on the scheme are only mildly disabled, if at all. And yet, even as the cost threatens to bankrupt the country, even minor reforms prompt screams of protest.

Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries

Also threatening the national budget is the cost of childcare. It is no longer sufficient to keep small children happy while their parents are at work; it is now early education. Advocates have created a narrative that children who remain home with their mothers are somehow deprived. Childcare is rapidly becoming yet another entitlement to be funded by the government.

There was a time when Australians liked to think of themselves as self-reliant and quick to help each other, while receiving welfare was an embarrassment and an indication of failure.

This has been replaced by a culture of entitlement in which there is absolutely no compunction about receiving money from the government. Many people insist they have a right to a pension simply because they have paid taxes, despite that never having been the situation in Australia. Even those who have never paid tax (apart from GST), or who frittered their savings away on gambling and ‘substance abuse’, demand it.

Some of this thinking is attributable to the fact that a proportion of immigrants originate from countries which have contributory pension schemes. They assume it is no different in Australia. But a far bigger factor is the entitlement mentality. If someone else can get a pension, I should also get it. If someone else is receiving benefits via the NDIS, it’s only fair that I obtain them too. In fact, if there is money being handed out for anything, I’m entitled to it.

There is no longer any disgrace in receiving government benefits. Indeed, a thriving industry of accountants and Financial Planners specialises in rearranging their client’s affairs to meet eligibility requirements for government benefits, especially pensions and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.

There is even intergenerational welfare, with extended families living on welfare their entire lives. This is particularly the case with certain indigenous communities, while “Lebanese back” is apparently sufficient to qualify for a disability support pension.

Some admit that ‘government money’ originates with taxpayers, but it makes little difference. The sense of entitlement defies guilt, facts and reason, hence the reluctance of politicians to make changes for fear of losing votes. Even worse, many politicians use taxpayers’ money to buy votes.

The sense of entitlement owes it origins to the growth of the welfare state over the last half century, together with the rise in taxation that accompanied it. Although Australia has had an age pension for more than a century, disability assistance, childcare subsidies, unemployment benefits, medical benefits and many other handouts and subsidies are far more recent.

It has led to the perception of an all-pervasive government with unlimited resources. Moreover, if you go about it the right way, money can be extracted from it.

Also a factor is the level of income tax. Getting something back from the government to compensate for the amount of tax paid makes sense. Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries, on average taking 25% of earnings. Plenty of people see little benefit for themselves.

Join Mailing List

Obviously, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Australia is already living beyond its means, with budget deficits year after year. It is also actively discouraging industries that support the economy – think coal exports, gas exports, sheep exports – while increasing energy costs. It obviously cannot last.

What the country needs is a government that encourages self-reliance rather than dependence on the state. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that.

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

David Leyonhjelm

How Sunk Cost Fallacy Drives Authoritarian Policies

Jess Colby

31 July 2024

Sunk cost fallacy is the tendency of people to stick with a decision or course of action that isn’t having a positive result because the person has invested time, money and/or resources that cannot be recovered and do not want to feel that they have wasted them. In many cases, sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action.

Here are two real life examples of how people can be affected by sunk cost fallacy.

Example 1:

Amy buys a ticket to see a movie and goes into the cinema to watch it. After about 30 minutes she concludes the movie is not very good but watches it to the end because she doesn’t want to feel she has wasted her money on the ticket nor her time watching it.

Example 2:

Kiara has gambled away thousands of dollars hoping one day to win big. Kiara does not want to stop gambling because she thinks she will win big one day and doesn’t want to think her ‘investment’ was a waste. She continues to double down and gamble away even more money in the hope it will one day pay off.

What is authoritarian policy and what drives it?

Authoritarian public policy restricts the choices of individuals or violates recognised civil rights and liberties. It is typically driven either by a desire to control others or to solve a problem or perceived problem within society.

Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

It can be driven by malevolent forces, such as a group or individual wanting to increase their power or cause harm to a person or group they don’t like, or by benevolent forces wanting to solve a problem or make society a better place in the belief that the end justifies the means.

How is sunk cost fallacy relevant to authoritarian policies?

The imposition of any policy requires time, money and resources. Authoritarian policies also involve sacrificing rights and liberties, often even including those of the people supporting and perpetuating the policy.

Most people like to think they are decent and not causing harm to others and society. We each want to be the hero of our own story. Those who support and perpetuate authoritarian policies often have good intentions. But good intentions do not alter the harm they cause to individuals and society. To these people, any so called ‘sacrifices’ are a means to an end, and the erosion of civil liberties and human suffering are an investment. Any attempt to reverse such investment is considered an attempt to turn an investment into waste.

Some real-life examples of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

I will use two real life authoritarian policies as examples of sunk cost fallacy: the War on Drugs, and the Authoritarian Covid Response. Both came with significant social and economic costs, leading to major restrictions on individual freedom and causing significant suffering within society.

The War on Drugs:

The war on drugs has been waged for over half a century. Although there were laws that restricted and criminalised drugs in various countries, in the early 70s US President Richard Nixon found a way to criminalise groups that he did not like such as hippies and black people.

He knew that he couldn’t directly criminalise people for being hippies or black, but he also knew that drug use, in particular marijuana, was popular in both communities. From this, he enacted a policy in 1971 called the War on Drugs and created a government agency called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) using the excuse of public safety.

And in a fashion typical of the US government, the policy began to be promoted to other countries, with many falling into line.

The War on Drugs has proven to be incredibly destructive, with billions spent on enforcement around the world. Arresting people and putting them in jail uses a lot of resources and costs taxpayers a lot of money.

The criminalisation of drug use has also had many negative social effects such as making criminals of those who were otherwise causing no harm to others, and being used an excuse to introduce policies such as civil asset forfeiture.

On top of this, the War on Drugs has been a failure: drugs have won the war. People still use drugs. Yet governments around the world remain determined to make the policy work. New excuses are offered to justify the policy, such as public health and the cost to taxpayers in countries with socialised healthcare. Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

Sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action.

Authoritarian Covid Response:

The authoritarian Covid response (ACR) is a set of government responses to the Covid-19 virus which originated in China in late 2019 and proceeded to spread throughout the world. Although some people such the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions can get very sick, most people have mild symptoms and many don’t even know they have it.

In reaction to the virus, governments threw out their prepared pandemic plans and implemented extreme restrictions on everyday life that severely curtailed civil liberties and derailed the lives of millions of people all over the world.

People were subjected to rules that were overly restrictive, made no scientific sense and were counterproductive. The rules were constantly changing, often confusing and practically impossible to follow even for those who wanted to follow them.

The first two weeks and maybe even the first two months could have been forgiven but once it become obvious the rules were excessive and needless, they continued with significant societal support. The perpetuation of the policy had significant social and economic costs, has permanently eroded civil liberties, and has permanently and negatively altered the trajectory of the lives of many people including myself.

Whenever the excessive nature of the ACR was mentioned, those who support it wouldn’t just disagree but would respond in a manner that can be best described as emotional and angry. I noticed many Gen Z peers to be very supportive of the ACR policy despite our age group disproportionately experiencing many of its negative effects.

Join Mailing List

The longer a person supported the ACR, the less likely they were to stop supporting it, with their support becoming more aggressive over time, even to the point of cutting off close friends and family. Given the extensive personal and societal ‘sacrifices’ created by ACR policies, many who supported the ACR came to view the ‘sacrifices’ caused by the policy to be an investment.

Ending the ACR policy would mean that the ‘sacrifices’ were a pointless sunk cost and a loss of their investment, and that they had needlessly harmed society. This desire to avoid losing out on their investment helped perpetuate the ACR policy and continue its existence.

The implications of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

Knowing that sunk cost fallacy drives authoritarian policy emphasises the importance of working to stop authoritarian policies before they even take hold. Once they do take hold, people become invested in their continuation which makes it more difficult to eliminate them.

Jess Colby

Childcare – Why should you pay for it?

David Leyonhjelm

19 July 2024

Starting before they are born, our governments spend a lot of money on children.

The Commonwealth budget for education alone is $67 billion, and in NSW $24 billion. Add the other states and territories, plus health care, and as the saying goes, pretty soon you’re talking real money.

While our society obviously values children highly, it is rare that anyone questions why so much of their cost is socialised. Having children is, after all, a choice. Other lifestyle choices do not attract such taxpayer generosity.

Among the taxpayers who provide the funds are many who do not have children themselves. Some are yet to start a family, while others have chosen not to have them. But there are also those who, for various reasons, would very much like to become parents but cannot.

A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money, but a particularly convincing case is required to justify compelling those who cannot have children to pay for other people’s children. It’s like obliging paraplegics to pay for the running shoes of the able bodied.

The government thinks there is a strong case for childcare. It wants women to return to the workforce as soon as possible, so they resume paying tax and contributing to government revenue. With state and federal governments all addicted to spending more than they collect, they have a strong incentive to increase taxpayer numbers.

The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce, the more they retain their work skills. This is presented as a benefit to the women, as women who return to work more quickly typically earn higher incomes. However, they also pay more tax.

For the mothers of the children, the case is not so clear. Some women are obviously career oriented and anxious to return to the workforce as soon as possible. However, there are many who would prefer to care for their children themselves, especially while they are small, rather than entrust them to strangers in childcare facilities. Motherhood is a powerful instinct, and most jobs are rarely more engaging than raising a child.

The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce.

The key reason most do not remain at home is economic: single income families with children typically struggle to pay a mortgage or rent plus general living expenses, vehicle expenses and the rest.

The underlying cause of this is government policies, particularly high income taxes, excise on essentials such as fuel, and the regulation and taxes that lead to expensive housing. Remove these and it would be a lot easier to live on one income.

From the point of view of the children, the case for childcare is even less compelling. Mothers have been caring for their children for thousands of years and have not recently become incompetent.

But we are told that it is no longer sufficient to simply keep children safe, happy and entertained while their parents are at work; the children must now be educated by qualified early childhood educators. It is now known as early childhood education and care (ECEC).

Moreover, whereas childcare workers were once just sensible, caring people, most with children or grandchildren of their own, they must now hold post-school – and sometimes even university-level – qualifications. Mothers who have successfully raised four children of their own cannot become childcare workers unless they have obtained the appropriate qualification, while those who have a qualification but no prior childminding experience are fine.

There has also been a ratcheting up of regulation of the physical environment, the programs and routines offered, plus the ratio of staff to children in childcare centres.

For the most part this has been driven by middle-class parental guilt. That is, parents seeking to justify the decision to place their children in childcare are demanding standards that allow them to believe their offspring are receiving a better start in life than if they stayed at home. It makes them feel better about leaving the kids with someone else.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that these standards are enhancing children’s outcomes. This was conceded in the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Childcare and Early Childhood Learning. The evidence indicates that the only children who benefit from ECEC are from dysfunctional households, such as those where substance abuse is an issue.

Furthermore, the ramped-up regulation and credentialism have made childcare seriously expensive. Even moderately well-paid parents baulk when the cost is almost as much as they can earn by going to work. For the poorest parents, especially single mothers who have a strong need to return to work, it is simply out of reach.

A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money,

Childcare advocates, especially those with a pecuniary interest, are seeking to convince the government to implement a universal ECEC system, based on recognising early childhood education as a fundamental need. Naturally they claim this should be provided at minimal cost to parents, arguing it would give children the support they need to thrive into adulthood, while parents, particularly women, would be better able to balance work and care responsibilities.

This is a profoundly elitist view, based on the assumption that virtually all women prefer to return to work, and that virtually all children benefit from early childcare education. As previously discussed, neither is true. Moreover, the cost of such a system, tens of billions of dollars, would be borne by taxpayers.

What is never considered is changing the incentives so mothers do not feel so pressured to return to work. If income taxes were significantly reduced by, for example, allowing single income households to split their income between working and non-working parents, the pressure would ease. If the cost of childcare was tax deductible, it would help. If fuel excise plus GST did not take over half the cost of fuel, households would have more money for other purposes. If housing was not so heavily taxed and regulated by local, state and federal governments, there would be more houses at affordable prices.

Join Mailing List

And if childcare was less regulated, with only those opting for early childhood education paying for it, the cost of ordinary childcare to mothers who genuinely need it would be more affordable.

As it stands, ECEC is a taxpayer-funded elite middle-class racket. Rather than hit taxpayers for ever increasing subsidies, the sector needs to be substantially deregulated. Middle and upper-middle class families who expect gold-plated, diamond-encrusted childcare – with its university educated workers and low staff ratios – should pay for it themselves.

David Leyonhjelm

Slaying the dragon of censorship.

Gerardine Hoogland

8 July 2024

Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

This is the question the ancient Greek historian, Plutarch, asked in relation to the actions of the newly formed triumvirate of Octavian (soon to be Rome’s first emperor, Augustus), Antony, and Lepidus as they turned on their Roman countrymen in their quest for power in the final stages of the fall of the Roman Republic in 43 BC.

It is a reasonable question to be asked of anyone aiming to assume leadership over their fellow citizens, no matter the period in history. That we have enough warnings of the traps which men fall into, should be uppermost in our minds when it comes to seeing our democracies as fair and reasonable.

At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

The most prescient warning, articulated in what I consider the best advice when setting up government, was penned by the Roman historian, Livy.

“The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

To the question of power, I argue that it is even more pertinent today in our modern liberal democracy, because we were led to believe that modernity has ushered in a more humane, decent, and enlightened way to conduct our lives.

Recent events, however, prove otherwise.

Much has been written about the powers sought by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, to silence Australians as if we were kindergarten children who cry out for guidance at every turn in the playground.

By now we ought to be used to unfettered power being sought and wielded by senior bureaucrats; the recent four years of mandates and scare tactics being a prime example. But we should never get used to our political representatives further bolstering those powers without consulting the people first.

It is frightening to consider what might lay before us here in Australia, with the recent announcement by opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Liberal Party in government would introduce a ban on social media for children under 16 years of age.

This is the mainstream party that apparently espouses the values of individual liberty.

Dutton says that facial recognition to determine somebody’s age is “appropriate.” That, therefore, would leave anyone over 16 needing to comply with this ultimatum if they want to have a social media presence.

No doubt the government will call it “choice.” We will be told it is all in the name of safety; in this case, keeping children safe online. Nobody disputes the gold standard of being able to keep children safe from harm, but to punish law-abiding citizens by extinguishing their individual right to express themselves and associate with others in a peaceful way, is wrong.

Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate compared to the punishment dished out in the ancient world.

As the Roman Republic lay dying in the late first century BC, Cicero offended Marc Antony in several of his speeches, declaring Antony an enemy of the state.

For his efforts of expressing views to save his beloved Republic from a would-be tyrant in Antony, Cicero had his head and hands cut off, the latter pinned to the rostra in the forum. It was said to be a reminder of what happens to those who disagree with the ruling elite of the day but it was, for Antony, a statement of revenge upon the man who consistently delivered powerful invectives against his character.

At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

But the words of Cicero are still as meaningful today as they were when he warned his fellow senators that “servitude is the worst of all evils.”

Join Mailing List

It is with a degree of risk that we stand up publicly and declare his warnings today, but to do so with the eloquence of a man who is considered by many to have been Rome’s greatest politician, would be sweet indeed:

“To be slaves to libertines, bullies, foul profligates, gamblers, and drunkards, that is the ultimate in misery joined with the ultimate in dishonour.”

Gerardine Hoogland

GST is Better than Income Tax

Duncan Spender

3 July 2024

In my last article I argued that a flat and broad-based income tax is much the same as a broad-based GST, so we have little reason to hate the concept of income tax more than the concept of GST. I argued this by setting out an imaginary scenario with five citizens, one business, and no government.

But there is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better. I will argue this by adding an additional year to the imaginary scenario, and by honing in on three of the citizens – the three employees.

Year 1

In year 1 each employee earns a salary of $100,000, enough to buy 100,000 products at $1 each.

One employee is short-sighted and borrows $100,000 from another employee, who we will call the long-sighted employee. So in year 1 the short-sighted employee buys 200,000 products while the long-sighted employee buys nothing.

Year 1 with no government

Citizen…	receives…	and pays…
The short-sighted employee	$100,000 of salary, plus $100,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee	$200,000 for 200,000 products
The long-sighted employee	$100,000 of salary, less $100,000 lent to the short-sighted employee	Nothing for no products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 100,000 products

To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent.

Year 2

In year 2 each salary is $104,030, but this amount now buys only 101,000 products because the product price has risen from $1 to $1.03.

The salary of the short-sighted employee is transferred to the long-sighted employee to pay off the previous year’s debt. As such, the long-sighted employee buys 202,000 products in year 2, while the short-sighted employee buys nothing.

Year 2 with no government

Citizen…	receives…	and pays…
The short-sighted employee	$104,030 of salary, less $104,030 paid to the long-sighted employee	Nothing for no products
The long-sighted employee	$104,030 of salary, plus $104,030 paid by the short-sighted employee	$208,060 for 202,000 products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee	$104,030 of salary	$104,030 for 101,000 products

Bring Out The Government

Now imagine instead a scenario where there is a government, and let us assume the government’s taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as in the absence of government.

In year 1 the government demands enough money from the three employees to buy 60,000 products. The government could get the money via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries of the employees.

Year 1 with income tax

Citizen…	receives…	and pays…
The short-sighted employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary, and $80,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee	$160,000 for 160,000 products
The long-sighted employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary, less $80,000 lent to the short-sighted employee	Nothing for no products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Government	$60,000 in tax	$60,000 for 60,000 products

In year 2, the government ups its demand, and now seeks enough money from the three employees to buy 60,600 products.

If the government gets the money via income tax, it ends up taking more from savers compared to the amount taken from borrowers, and compared to the amount taken from those who neither save nor borrow.

Consider the long-sighted employee, who lent $80,000 to the short-sighted employee in year 1, and who receives $83,452 from the short-sighted employee in year 2.

Year 2 with income tax

Citizen…	receives…	and pays…
The short-sighted employee	$83,452 of after-tax salary, less $83,452 paid to the long-sighted employee	Nothing for no products
The long-sighted employee	$83,452 of after-tax salary, plus $83,452 paid by the short-sighted employee, less $683 of tax on interest	$166,221 for 161,379 products
The take-it-as-it-comes employee	$83,452 of after-tax salary	$83,452 for 81,021 products
Government	$62,418 in tax	$62,418 for 60,600 products

The pre-tax income of the long-sighted employee in year 2 is $104,030 of salary plus $3,452 of interest, summing to $107,482. So the long-sighted employee has higher pre-tax income than the other employees, simply because of a deal struck between peers.

There is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better.

To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent. The rate is lower than in year 1 because the government has dreamt up more income to tax than just salary income.

The long-sighted employee pays more tax in year 2 than any other citizen ($21,261 compared to $20,578). The long-sighted employee ends up purchasing less than double what the take-it-as-it comes employee purchases, despite the long-sighted employee having gone without all purchases in year 1.

This intrusion into the deal struck between the long-sighted employee and the short-sighted employee is how income tax punishes saving.

Even if the long-sighted and short-sighted employees respond to the imposition of income tax by negotiating a change in the interest payment involved in their arrangement, this would just mean they share the punishment of deal-making meted out by income tax, a punishment that the take-it-as-it-comes employee avoids.

As income tax penalises deal-making between savers and borrowers, while GST does not, income is inherently inferior to GST.

Duncan Spender

Duncan Spender is CEO of Oysters Tasmania, having previously served as CEO of the Multicultural Council of Tasmania. He advised Senator David Leyonhjelm from 2014 and briefly served as Senator in 2019. Duncan’s early career was in local government and the Australian and New Zealand Treasury Departments.

The New Coalition?

Max Payne

27 June 2024

While falling well short on some key issues, it’s been heartening at least to see the Federal Coalition leading the discourse and taking some risks on genuine reform.

Left in ruins after being swept from office in 2022, many commentators questioned the viability of the Liberal party. But within two years they have surged back into relevance, and with a flavour less antithetical to libertarians.

It began early in 2023 when the National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum, and Dutton duly followed, despite some resistance within the Liberals. This crucial first step allowed Australians to see that Dutton’s Liberals were delineated from Labor, and despite healthy early polling for the ‘yes’ case, Dutton’s gamble paid off handsomely and the Albanese honeymoon ended abruptly.

The Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal.

Then, whispers on vaping prohibition, super for housing, an overhaul of immigration, and of course the big one: nuclear power. Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey was even floating the idea of income splitting between household partners! Recognising his lack of personability and charisma, Dutton has opted to take a series of policy reforms to the next election with an eye to vastly expanding the Coalition’s electoral map as its traditional base shrinks.

Lo and behold, they have already taken the lead in several recent national polls and, incredibly, Dutton overtook Albanese as preferred PM in the latest Resolve poll – something I thought I would never see. It may be that in time Dutton will again lose control of the narrative; Australians are typically sceptical of reform agendas from opposition (see Bill Shorten, 2019), but there’s some encouragement for libertarians here.

It appears the unfolding political realignment is presenting the Liberals with an opportunity to reinvent themselves as the party of working Australians. The ‘teal wave’ of 2022, that also saw blue ribbon seats such as Higgins and Ryan fall to Labor and the Greens, was a blessing in disguise. Many of the nagging progressive moderates of the party were flushed out of metropolitan strongholds, leaving Dutton with no choice but to devise a new path to victory. Thus, faced with poor prospects with young voters and the opportunity to re-home the politically jaded working class, Dutton is unveiling his new coalition.

As libertarians, we still have important work to do. Firstly, the Coalition maintains terrible policy in areas such as online safety, while their shadow cabinet currently boasts the leftovers of a government that completely failed to effectively manage the budget for a decade.

The National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum

Secondly, the Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal. Metropolitan centres still dominate their electoral prospects and the old risk averse attitude still prevails: in Queensland for example, LNP leader David Crisafulli is paralysed, terrified of losing an unlosable state election, while in Victoria John Pesutto and his inner city moderates still control the party.

Undoubtably, libertarians still have a major opportunity to shape public policy. While it’s encouraging to see the Coalition adopt a reform agenda with some sensible policy that promotes free choice and prosperity, they are still a long way from their classical liberal roots. At the state level, libertarians have a unique opportunity to help set the agenda and give voice to the aspirational working class. Imagine, for a moment, if the Liberal Party had spoken up on behalf of those campaigning against the excesses of Covid mania and mandates. Imagine also if they had meekly embraced bipartisanship on the Voice.

Join Mailing List

It is worth reflecting on the positive change we see in the Liberal Party. They are perhaps the most powerful vessel for libertarian policies, having proven under Dutton that they can take on the left and win. It’s indicative of our political influence in action. However, we must be merciless when they stray back towards populist authoritarianism.

Max Payne

The Myth of Speed

David Leyonhjelm

17 June 2024

We are constantly told that Australia has a huge road toll. Every holiday break and long weekend there are reports of how many people were killed, amid inferences that this is a major and growing tragedy.

Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding. There is a never-ending campaign, complete with gory advertisements warning of lifelong injuries, telling us to slow down. The message never varies – below the speed limit is safe, above the limit is not. Indeed, we are told that even 1km/hr above the speed limit increases the likelihood of serious injury and death. Vacuous journalists blame speed for almost every accident they cover.

And should we fail to heed the message there are speed cameras, aerial monitoring, highway patrols and double demerit periods to remind us.

In reality, driving on Australian roads is safer than it has been for over fifty years. Road fatalities, both absolute and relative to the population, have been steadily falling. Whereas in 1970 there were 3,798 road fatalities, equal to 30.4 fatalities per 100,000 people, in 2022 there were just 1,194 fatalities, a rate of 4.6 per 100,000.

Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads

Most of the decline occurred prior to 2000 following the introduction of seat belts, improved road design, vehicle safety upgrades such as disc brakes and impact resistance, and limits on drink-driving.

But it has continued up to the present time: in the decade to 2012 the rate of deaths relative to population decreased by an annual average of 4.2%. In the ten years to 2022 it fell by an annual average of 1.9%.

The bottom line is, Australia’s road toll is a fraction of what it once was and continues to fall. Fewer people die in road accidents than from the flu or Covid. And yet, rather than celebrate this success, government perpetuates the fiction that things are bad and getting worse. Moreover, despite quite minor changes to speed limits over the period (slight increase on highways and slight reduction in the suburbs), it insists that excessive speed is the primary culprit.

All this while most of Europe, which has overall higher speed limits than Australia, has lower road death rates. That includes Germany, where there are no speed limits on major autobahns.

Responsibility for this myth lies with the National Road Safety Strategy, prepared every few years by transport and infrastructure bureaucrats from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. For many years it has led a crusade with the broad aim of significantly reducing road trauma, resulting ultimately in zero deaths and serious injuries (which it defines as anyone admitted to hospital, irrespective of seriousness or the length of stay), by 2050.

It argues speed is a key element in all crashes, and that this necessitates lower speed limits and additional enforcement. State governments, which collect tens of millions in speeding fines, dutifully go along with it.

Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding.

While very high speeds can obviously lead to more serious accidents, the data shows that deaths occur at any speed. Indeed, achieving zero deaths and injuries from road accidents is only feasible if everyone walks (even then, some would die of heart attacks). That would clearly be unacceptable to the community, which implicitly accepts a certain level of deaths and injuries as the price of convenient travel.

The elevation of speed limits to icon status is both dishonest and absurd. Those responsible for setting limits, road safety experts and traffic engineers in the public service, are determining the trade-off between convenient travel times and the road toll for the entire community. If speed is truly the demon we are led to believe, they are essentially deciding how many people should die.

If this all sounds familiar, with memories of recent events during the Covid epidemic, that is not surprising. The gross overstating of a public health risk; a determination to mitigate that risk without regard for economic or social consequences; an assumption that the public are not competent to make their own decisions about bearing that risk. It’s all the same.

Join Mailing List

As with Covid, it amounts to a classic case of gross bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who ought to determine the trade-off between travel convenience and the road toll. (There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula.) It is the public, not public health bureaucrats, who should decide whether the road toll warrants greater priority than other causes of death and disease.

Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads, but a risk-free society is not a rational public health objective. Road users are not sinful children and should not be viewed as a source of government revenue, and public health bureaucrats should not be allowed to play God.

David Leyonhjelm

The Art of the Deal

James Hol

7 June 2024

US Libertarians met for their National Convention in Washington DC late last month, where they heard from a range of speakers and selected their presidential candidate. However, this was unlike any other Libertarian National Convention – in fact, it was unlike any prior political party convention in US history.

MAKE AMERICA LIBERTARIAN AGAIN

The headline speaker for the Libertarian National Convention was the 45^th President of the United States and presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 Presidential Election, Donald Trump. Never before in US history has a rival political candidate addressed a political party convention.

While much of the Trump-hating media described the speech as being met with a chorus of booing and heckling, that was not entirely accurate. While Trump certainly faced one of his most hostile crowds, there were several points where he managed to draw cheers from the libertarians. One of those moments probably marks the biggest political win for libertarians in history.

US Libertarians have their biggest opportunity to meaningfully influence the political landscape, ironically by running fewer candidates.

THE THREE PERCENT

During his speech, Trump gave Libertarians an ultimatum: continue wining a meaningless three percent of the vote or join me and win together. Along with promising to free Ross Ulbricht, the founder and operator of Silk Road, Trump pledged to appoint libertarians to his cabinet and senior positions of government. And while there are genuine questions regarding the trustworthiness of Trump’s word, he is absolutely right.

The Libertarian Party, particularly within the US electoral system, will never win a single meaningful election. In over 20 years, the Libertarians have only won one of the possible 8,161 seats available in any federal, state or territorial congress. Having libertarians in Trump’s cabinet and senior levels of government would be a far more politically successful outcome for Libertarians than anything the Party has ever been able to achieve in its 53-year history.

The “The Party of Principle” needs to consider whether it is time to start putting principles over partisanship and accept that sometimes supporting someone else is the greatest force for liberty.

Trump pledged to appoint libertarians to his cabinet and senior positions of government.

THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE

Unfortunately, most of those in the room that day missed the boat, choosing to boo the former President for no other reason than that he is a former President and has an “R” next to his name. While I understand being derisive when non-libertarian policies are advocated at a Libertarian Convention, booing Trump for merely entering the room and approaching the podium is simply childish. Never have I been more embarrassed to be a libertarian.

Instead of embracing Trump’s offer, the Libertarians decided to nominate Chase Oliver: someone who publicly gushed over his favourite type of mask and virtue-signalled about how COVID-safe his family’s Thanksgiving dinner was. With a woke candidate, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr siphoning the protest vote, the Libertarian Party, faces an existential crisis. When Trump asked whether Libertarians would continue to be happy with three percent of the vote, he was being generous: the Libertarian Party will be lucky to achieve even one percent of the vote in this presidential race.

Join Mailing List

TAKING THE L

US Libertarians have their biggest opportunity to meaningfully influence the political landscape, ironically by running fewer candidates. Hopefully those within the Libertarian Party – and the “small-L” libertarians – can put their pride aside and see where this opportunity truly lies: alliances and influence.

Libertarians (both big and small-L) need to decide what matters more to them: clinging on to a meaningless three percent of the presidential vote (if they’re lucky) or having libertarians in the White House and senior government positions. It seems like an obvious choice to me.

James Hol

Why You Should Oppose the Government’s Attempt to Censor the Sydney Church Stabbing Video

Jess Colby

5 June 2024

If you have been following the issue of freedom of expression in Australia, you will be aware of the efforts of the government to censor the Sydney church stabbing video on X (but not mainstream media websites) via a court order. The court order has since been overturned although what will happen next is still uncertain.

It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders. X is currently willing to comply with that, but the Australian government also wants to restrict what the whole world can see.

Below I will offer some reasons why you should oppose the censorship efforts of the Australian government, including both within Australia and globally.

Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect

One reason given by the Australian government for its current censorship efforts is that the video in question is considered to be indecent, confronting and violent. The problem with censoring videos on this basis is that it sets a dangerous precedent that would enable the government to censor a wide range of media; it is a slippery slope. Whether a video is considered indecent, confronting or violent is subjective and a matter of individual interpretation.

Regardless, even if a video is ‘indecent’, ‘confronting’ or ‘violent’, that is not sufficient reason to tell someone they cannot watch it. That decision should be up to the individual, not the government.

In any case, contrary to what may be portrayed by the mainstream media and government, government censorship is not about protecting the public but instead gives the government cover to selectively censor things it finds embarrassing or doesn’t want the public to know about or talk about.

Many confronting and violent videos are in fact matters of public interest; a prominent example being the Afghan Files, which were a collection of videos that depict war crimes committed by the Australian Army in Afghanistan. When these videos were publicly reported, the Australian government attempted to censor them and even raided Australian media organisations. The only difference was that they used the ‘justification’ of national security rather than public decency.

When considering any sort of law or government policy, it is always important to consider how such a law or policy might be misused by a stupid person or weaponised by an evil person. From my perspective, I consider the government to be a rather stupid and evil organisation.

It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders.

An issue of major concern which is often subject to censorship is footage of police shootings. These videos often depict police brutality and misconduct and are an important matter of public interest. If the Australian government can establish that it is acceptable to censor videos on the basis of being confronting and depicting violence, footage of police shootings will be at high risk of government censorship.

‘Confronting’ and ‘violent’ videos can be a primary source of information. They allow people to know exactly what happened, as cameras don’t lie. Censoring such videos forces people to rely on secondary sources of information such as the mainstream media and government, both of which are often biased and leave out critical details without allowing the public to verify their information.

Preventing the spread of extremism is also used to justify the censorship of the Sydney church stabbing. However, censoring the video does not address the root causes of Islamic extremism within segments of Muslim community, or prevent people from knowing about the incident.

Join Mailing List

Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect and brought more attention than if it had just been allowed to fade into obscurity.

As for wider implications, if the Australian government has the power to censor the internet globally, other governments around the world will inevitably seek to do the same. This includes repressive nations that already have a strong desire to censor the World Wide Web such as China, Russia and many more.

Opposing the recent censorship efforts of the Australian government isn’t just important for protecting freedom of expression and information in Australia, but it is also important for the entire world.

Jess Colby

The Case for Wisdom, Temperance, and Common Sense.

Gerardine Hoogland

3 June 2024

With all the chaos occurring within western democracies right now, I thought it timely to focus on solutions rather than the troubles we face.

In the primer to this publication, it states that Liberty Itch will present ideas that will champion your rights as an individual, challenge concepts that threaten those freedoms, and warn you of impending coercion.

My contribution, as a historian of ancient history, is to sound the warning signals, of which there are many. In doing so, I stress the importance of visiting foundational values which paved the way for the freedoms and liberties we have today.

For example, why is it controversial to promote the idea of temperance within our families, communities, towns, and cities?

Why can we not remain living free and still be virtuous people?

Why is it that we cannot discuss ideas that make others feel uncomfortable because it challenges their own personal views yet does them no harm?

I ask these questions because this is the premise upon which the Spartan ruler, Lycurgus, implemented an ingenious political system; one that the Romans subsequently adopted, and of which we moderns inherited the blueprint.

The political structure must comprise three levels of government – monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

No doubt many will wonder how Sparta could possibly contribute to the advancement of liberty, given her reputation for minimalism in all things creative, and strict discipline in the ways of living. But stay with me.

This Spartan ruler is fascinating!

Lycurgus is credited with the founding of Classical Sparta’s eunomia, meaning “good order.” He was a fifth century lawmaker and sage who took the time to ponder and implement what he considered to be the best solution for governance of his country. He travelled to Crete, Asia, and Egypt to examine the various ways of government. He returned to Sparta inspired and resolved to “change the whole face of the commonwealth.” He saw his duty like this:

“He must act as wise physicians do, in the case of one who labours under a complication of diseases, by force of medicines reduce and exhaust him, change his whole temperament, and then set him upon a totally new regime of diet.”

In other words, he wanted his country healthy in mind, body, and spirit.

He planned meticulously; no reactionary policy-on-the-run for this wise and disciplined man.

But the change of most importance was the establishment of the senate. He was in search of a ballast, a central weight that would prevent the state from leaning too much toward absolute monarchy on one hand, and pure democracy on the other.

He appointed people on merit – what an extraordinary idea!

“The vacancies he ordered to be supplied out of the best and most deserving men past sixty years old…for what more glorious competition amongst men than one in which it was not contested who was swiftest among the swift or strongest of the strong, but who of many wise and good was wisest and best.”

One can only imagine the heights of greatness a nation could aspire to if the people who governed were of sound mind and soul. For us in 2024, it appears merely as a dream.

And what of external conflicts? Well, Lycurgus had no desire to govern other nations; his interest lay toward his own. And that interest was grounded in virtue, and to keep the concord of his own people. His aim was this:

No doubt many will wonder how Sparta could possibly contribute to the advancement of liberty

“…to make and keep them free-minded, self-dependent, and temperate.”

What better state of being could a leader possibly want for his people, and what could the people possibly want more than this?

Lycurgus is celebrated as the “wise lawgiver” who gave Spartans a government of “happy balance and temper.”

My trusty Roget’s Thesaurus defines the word Spartan as:

Stoic – patient – strict – inornate – concise – abstinent – meagre.

Tough words with even tougher consequences, and particularly offensive to our modern weakmindedness. Imagine imposing, let alone suggesting, the concept of “discipline.”

But with so much chaos occurring by way of disrespect, blame-shifting, and outright inconsideration for our constitution and laws, why would we not seek to shift the pendulum back to the middle?

The ancients learned through experience that for societies to operate within some sort of order, the political structure must comprise three levels of government – monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy.

Join Mailing List

The idea was that one arm would not devolve into its simplest form and thereby become perverted.

1. Monarchy into one-man autocratic rule.

2. Aristocracy into oligarchy.

3. Democracy into chaotic mob rule.

These three elements can work together to provide a stable form of government, only IF it is by choice that they work with or against one another.

I wrote last month of broken systems and the responsibility of the people to bear some of the brunt of that brokenness, rather than merely throwing stones at those we send to represent us. Politician bashing (metaphorically) may make for good armchair sport, but it does nothing to advance the cause to restore a semblance of decency into our societies.

To read about Lycurgus is to wonder if he is a utopian idealist, a benevolent dictatorial figure, or one who harbours an interest in libertarianism.
My view is he comprises the essence of all three elements. It is something that we should all yearn for in our own polity.

Gerardine Hoogland

Hate income tax? You shouldn’t

Duncan Spender

31 May 2024

Some taxes are more damaging than others. But when working out which taxes are more damaging than others, you should not judge a tax by its name.

The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.

So a special hatred for the idea of income tax relative to GST is unjustified.

Let me explain with a simplified scenario.

First, imagine a country with five citizens and no government.

One of the citizens, ‘the entrepreneur’, establishes a business by borrowing money from one of the other citizens, ‘the capitalist’. In the first year the entrepreneur pays the capitalist $100,000 in interest.

The business imports 500,000 raw inputs at $1 each, and employs three citizens at a salary of $100,000 each.

The business produces 1,000,000 products and sells half of them to foreigners and the other half to the five citizens of the country, all at $1 each. So the business makes $1,000,000.

The business pays $100,000 of dividends to the entrepreneur.

Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects.

A scenario with no government

	Receives	Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur	$100,000 of dividends	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 2 – the capitalist	$100,000 of interest	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 3 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 4 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 100,000 products
Citizen 5 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 100,000 products
The rest of the world	$500,000 for 500,000 inputs	$500,000 for 500,000 products

Now imagine instead that this scenario includes a government. The government demands enough money to buy 100,000 products. And for now, let us assume that this taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as they would in the absence of government.

The government could get the money it demands via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries, interest, and dividend received by the citizens. In year 1 this would leave the five citizens with $400,000 instead of $500,000 in their pockets, and with the capacity to buy only 400,000 rather than 500,000 of the business’s products. The government would have $100,000 and the capacity to buy 100,000 of the business’s products.

A scenario with income tax

	Receives	Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur	$80,000 of after-tax dividends	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 2 – the capitalist	$80,000 of after-tax interest	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 3 – an employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 4 – an employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary	$80,000 for 80,000 products
Citizen 5 – an employee	$80,000 of after-tax salary	$80,000 for 80,000 products
The rest of the world	$500,000 for raw inputs	$500,000 for 500,000 products
Government	$100,000 in tax	$100,000 for 100,000 products

Alternatively, the government could get enough money to buy 100,000 products via a 25 per cent GST.

The foreign supplier of 500,000 raw inputs would charge the business $625,000, send $125,000 of GST to the government, and, just like in the scenario without government, would end up with $500,000.

The business would continue to sell half of its products to foreigners for $500,000, at $1 each, given that no GST applies to exports.

The business would sell the other half of its products domestically for $625,000, at $1.25 each. The business would pay $125,000 of GST on these domestic sales, but would claim a $125,000 input tax credit, so overall the business would send nothing to the government.

The government’s overall receipts from both the business and the foreign supplier of raw inputs would be $125,000, enough to buy 100,000 products.

The business would continue to provide $500,000 as salaries, interest, and dividends to the five citizens, but this $500,000 would now only be enough to buy 400,000 products.

The impacts of income tax and GST can be much the same, because income tax and GST largely tax the same thing.

A scenario with GST

	Receives	Pays
Citizen 1 – the entrepreneur	$100,000 of dividends	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 2 – the capitalist	$100,000 of interest	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 3 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 4 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
Citizen 5 – an employee	$100,000 of salary	$100,000 for 80,000 products at $1.25
The rest of the world	$500,000 for inputs	$500,000 for 500,000 products at $1
Government	$125,000 in tax	$125,000 for 100,000 products

Under these income tax and GST scenarios, the dollar outcomes differ but the real outcomes are identical.

In the income tax scenario, each citizen receives $80,000 that enables the purchase of 80,000 products.

Regardless of which tax is imposed, foreigners are unaffected, and the purchasing power of each of the citizens is hurt to the same degree.

The reason for this is as follows. In the GST scenario, the tax base is the difference between the business’s domestic receipts and its outlays on imported raw inputs. Yet this tax base is also the money the business pays to the citizenry as income. So the tax base for GST is also the tax base for income tax.

Because the citizens’ purchasing power is hurt to the same degree under both scenarios, the discouragement effect of tax would be the same in both scenarios. Contrary to popular belief, there is no great difference in the discouragement effect of income tax compared to the discouragement effect of GST.

Join Mailing List

Now, in the real world, Australia’s income tax and GST do not have identical impacts on purchasing power and do not have identical discouragement effects.

This is partly because of inherently different impacts on savings, that I will discuss in a later article.

But the main reason why our income tax and GST have different impacts is that they each have odd exemptions, and our income tax has various rates unlike the flat-rate GST.

In other words, a broad-based, single rate income tax would have much the same impact as a broad-based, single rate GST.

So the special hatred many feel for the concept of income tax seems unwarranted.

Duncan Spender

AI Dystopia

Damon Hayhow

17 May 2024

Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI). They fear everything from mass unemployment to societal collapse, the destruction of humanity by ‘the singularity’, the malicious, sentient AI boogieman (boogie-robot?) from so many science fiction novels and films.

It only takes a brief play with publicly available AI tools, such as Chat GPT, to understand the fear and excitement. It is shockingly impressive. In many ways interacting with LLM (Large Language Model) based AI feels like interacting with a person; an impressively articulate person with astonishing knowledge. It truly can seem sentient.

But this AI is actually far more artificial than intelligent. In many ways, the LLM based AI’s seem to have been designed specifically to pass the Turing Test: to fool users into believing they are interacting with a real person.

What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies.

The LLM-based AI tools can be likened to a person with a photographic memory reading an entire library of books in a language that they cannot speak. When presented with a question, they can write a seemingly intelligent reply, despite having no comprehension of either the question or answer. Their answer is constructed by recognising the patterns of letters and words in the question and matching them to related patterns that they recall from the books. The reply is not reasoned or abstracted; it is not even understood. It is simply plagiarised from the combined mass of documents available.

Because of the way this AI works, replies tend to reflect the most commonly repeated consensus viewpoint, not necessarily the cogent or correct viewpoint. Also, as people use AI to generate more and more content, that content becomes the learning data that AI uses to generate future content, in a perpetually self-reinforcing loop. Isn’t there a saying about telling a lie often enough?

Obviously, not all AI solutions are LLM based. But the foundations of current AI technologies are broadly related. The most important point is that the technologies that we are currently calling AI are not progressing toward a sentient consciousness. What is being called ‘AI’ is still an application of mathematical algorithms to data. The AI ‘revolution’ has more to do with the ever increasing pool of data available, and the speed at which it can be processed, than a fundamental change to the process of computing.

Understanding conceptually how AI does its thing is vital to understanding the real threat of AI. An omniscient computer is not going to consciously decide to destroy all of us. We can all rest easy knowing that any decision to drop nuclear bombs, poison the water, cut off the food supply, switch off the power grid, or engage in any other method of genocide will continue to be the conscious decision of humans in governments.

Many voices are warning about the impending dangers of artificial intelligence (AI).

Nonetheless, there is evidence that we are headed toward an AI-driven dystopia that could be every bit as miserable and tyrannical as science fiction.

WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, describes a future of “fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds”. He is so fanatically obsessed with AI technology that he genuinely believes he will live forever in a robot body after digitising his consciousness (ie downloading his brain). Meanwhile, his lead advisor, Yuval Harari, is on record lamenting what ‘they’ will do with all the “useless people” that AI renders “worthless”?

Listening to Schwab and Harari is disturbing. But world leaders and CEOs of the world’s largest corporations seem to take them seriously. DEI, ESG, CBDCs, carbon taxes, online censorship laws, hate-speech laws, forced vaccinations, WHO treaty, etc all either came from the WEF or are being promoted by it. And, the WEF is the official strategic partner of the UN to assist with the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for “Sustainable Development”. The WEF has clout.

Join Mailing List

Western Governments, including Australia’s, are onboard with all of the WEF’s tyrannical plans. They have passed (or are passing) laws to censor our speech, detain us without charge, block or steal our bank accounts, revoke our professional licenses, “reeducate” us, prevent us travelling, lock us in our homes and force-medicate us. They are increasingly spying on us, 24/7, to police our every action and thought. And they are currently building and applying AI tools to analyse all of that collected data to automatically find anything that could be considered “dangerous” behaviour or thought to apply those laws.

What little liberty we have left in western so-called ‘democracies’ is being taken from us by corrupt, incompetent and seemingly deranged bureaucracies and ostensibly put in the virtual hands of a technology that is, in fact, unintelligent, inherently prone to error, and easily manipulated. A sentient computer might have been better. At least Skynet would realise the politicians are the problem.

Damon Hayhow

Damon is the founder of the National Recomposition Institute and creator and founder of the Recomposer software system. He was also formerly the Australian Ambassador to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, president of the World Powerlifting Congress Australia and an Australian Champion in Bodybuilding and Powerlifting.

The Tax Power

Adam Craig

3 May 2024

The Commissioner of Taxation has too much power.

Libertarians consider tax to be either theft or, at best, should be low and flat to cover bare necessities. It certainly shouldn’t be as complex as it is or run to thousands of pages.

Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity and likely raise the overall tax burden. Libertarians rightly oppose those ideas as they come.

However, there is an easy win that ought to be important to libertarians: we need to limit the Commissioner of Taxation’s powers. It’s not exciting work, like developing new systems, but it is significant.

First, the Commissioner has too much power to amend assessments.

Australia has a self-assessment tax system. That means we declare income and allowable deductions, which the Commissioner accepts but can then amend if he considers the taxpayer was wrong.

Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner.

For individuals the Commissioner can amend an assessment within two years. For businesses, it is usually four years.

However, the relevant section of the law for income tax – leaving aside equivalent sections for other taxes – is around 3000 words– because it contains “ifs” and “buts” to protect the Commissioner.

For example, if the Commissioner makes a tax avoidance determination, he can have four years instead of two years to change an assessment. If the Commissioner believes there has been fraud or evasion, he has an unlimited amendment period. If the Commissioner believes a particular section of the tax law relating to trusts applies, he again has an unlimited amendment period.

These powers predate most of this century’s technological advances, which enable the Commissioner to work more efficiently and collect more data. Also, many amendments to the tax law in recent years have made it easier for the Commissioner to apply the law, including changes to avoidance laws favouring the Commissioner.

It must be a libertarian position to reduce amendment periods.

Second, the Commissioner does not need to prove anything in litigation. The starkest example of this rule operating unjustly is when the Commissioner has amended a taxpayer’s assessment because he believes fraud or evasion has occurred.

The Commissioner need only believe there has been fraud or evasion.

He can form this opinion about any year – 2003, for example. And if he goes back to 2003, he will likely repeat that for many subsequent years, and he will apply penalties and interest.

Most mainstream tax reform proponents have grandiose visions that would only add complexity

Suppose the matter is in the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Federal Court of Australia. The Commissioner will not need to prove the truth of his opinion. Also, it doesn’t matter if the taxpayer proves the Commissioner’s opinion was wrong. The taxpayer’s task, two decades later, is to show that its accounting was correct. Not surprisingly, most people do not have records that go back that far.

It must be a libertarian position to oppose the power to simply deem fraud, and to demand a time limit on the exercise of the fraud or evasion power. The Commissioner should have an obligation to prove fraud or evasion has occurred before the taxpayer must prove its accounts.

Third, the Commissioner is emboldened to use his amendment powers through funding. The Commissioner receives substantial funding to run the Australian Taxation Office.

Libertarians would rightly want that funding limited.

However, there is also a perpetual cycle of giving the Commissioner additional funding to use his amendment powers, particularly under the auspices of tax avoidance.

Join Mailing List

Libertarians would want that funding limited because it encourages the Commissioner to use his firmest amendment powers. It also raises questions about the management of public finances – should the Commissioner be “rewarded” with additional funding for things he should already be doing?

Libertarians can demand fairer amendment periods, a fairer burden of proof, and less funding for the Commissioner.

It would be hard to think that most taxpayers would not be libertarians regarding these issues.

Adam Craig

Adam Craig is a barrister. He had libertarian instincts as a teenager but joined the ALP as a student doing blue-collar work. After graduating he worked as a public servant, mainly at the ATO (including secondments at Treasury and Prime Minister and Cabinet). In observing the workings of government and the tax system, Adam became increasingly convinced that government had no answers and was wasteful. He left the public service for a life of independence at the Bar and has reembraced libertarianism.

The Federal Government Should Deliver a Decade of Surpluses

Duncan Spender

1 May 2024

A government’s balance sheet indicates whether it is engaging in intergenerational redistribution. If the government has negative net assets it is leaving future generations with more obligations than benefits. A government with positive net assets is leaving future generations with more benefits than obligations.

Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations, so should leave those decisions to individuals. This means that governments should have zero net assets; their balance sheets should be balanced.

Governments in Australia do not have balanced balance sheets. The Commonwealth has a significantly negative net asset position and each of the states and territories has a significantly positive net asset position.

When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

This is shown in Chart 1. It depicts public sector net asset positions relative to the size of the related economies. Commonwealth net assets are shown relative to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while each state or territory’s net assets are shown relative to the relevant state or territory’s Gross State Product (GSP). Each jurisdiction’s public sector includes government-owned businesses such as government-owned banks.

The Commonwealth’s negative net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with obligations in excess of benefits. In essence, the Commonwealth Government has locked in benefits for future generations, like security from the military assets it has accumulated to date, but has racked up far greater obligations, like obligations to pay back Commonwealth debts and fund the superannuation of retired Commonwealth public servants.

This decision of the Commonwealth Government to beggar the future is unlikely to represent the preference of Australians.

The Commonwealth Government’s intergenerational redistribution should stop, so as to leave intergenerational decisions to individuals. In other words, the Commonwealth Government should convert its negative net asset position to a zero net asset position. This should be done through a decade of surplus budgets (or surplus ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 2 per cent of GDP.

This could be readily achieved, for example by reducing Commonwealth Government transfers to the state and territory governments. These transfers are particularly odd given that each state and territory government is wealthier than the Commonwealth Government.

Each state and territory government’s positive net asset position means that it is choosing to leave future generations with benefits in excess of obligations. It is teeing up more benefits for future generations, like their enjoyment of public land holdings and use of infrastructure like roads, than it is racking up future obligations, like State Government debts and funding the superannuation of retired State public servants.

While leaving future generations with benefits in excess of obligations sounds nice, this is something that individuals are perfectly capable of doing without government.

Governments have no advantages over individuals in making decisions about what to leave to future generations

And the current generation may well be of the view that the degree of generosity to future generations shown by each of the state and territory governments is excessive. If there is a difference of opinion between a government and the individuals it represents, then it is the government that is wrong.

State and territory government intergenerational redistribution should be put to a stop by each government reducing its positive net asset position to net zero. This should be done through a decade of deficit budgets (or deficit ‘operating results’ to be more precise) of around 4 per cent of GDP on average.

Such deficits could be achieved by abolishing inefficient taxes like stamp duties, or by giving away assets. (Such give-aways count as losses that detract from the operating result.)

The biggest deficits should come from the wealthiest state governments, in Queensland and Victoria.

The wealth of the Victorian state government may come as a surprise. The Victorian state government has a stronger net asset position and a weaker net financial asset position than many of its counterparts (see Chart 2). It has done a lot of borrowing, which has weakened its net financial asset position, but it has done this to invest in non-financial assets. Overall this generates a positive, or at least neutral, impact on net assets.

Unfortunately for the Victorian state government, credit rating agencies tend to ignore a government’s net assets and instead focus on its net financial assets. Even more stupidly, lenders take these credit ratings into account when lending to governments. If a state or territory government wanted to defend its credit rating so as to ensure continued access to low-cost borrowing, it could still run significant deficits in line with my recommendation. It would just need to achieve these deficits by giving away non-financial assets, like land, so as to leave its net financial asset position unchanged.

Join Mailing List

When it comes to setting fiscal policy, governments should ignore short-term Keynesian distractions, and focus on long-term intergenerational neutrality.

Duncan Spender

Too Much Government

David Leyonhjelm

26 April 2024

Expectations of the role of ~~the~~ government have been rising steadily over the last decade. They rose substantially during the eastern states’ bushfires in late 2019 and early 2020, and again in response to the floods that followed in NSW and Queensland. And they reached stratospheric levels during the Covid panic.

Judged by the number of lives lost, those bushfires were far from the worst on record. Nonetheless, they were characterised as ‘unprecedented’ and prompted a chorus of demands for the Prime Minister to get involved. When it was discovered he had gone to Hawaii for a holiday with his family, he was accused of being negligent for leaving the country at such a time.

The Prime Minister did not leave the country when NSW and Queensland were hit by floods, but the opprobrium he attracted could hardly have been worse if he did. The floods were again described as unprecedented amid a chorus of claims the government should have acted sooner and done more.

The Covid schemozzle was obviously unprecedented and nobody could go anywhere. Once again, the Prime Minister and federal government were blamed – there were insufficient vaccines, the border should have been closed sooner, hotel quarantine was a failure, lockdowns were inadequate, plus a multitude of other perceived failures. All this despite the worst harm being done by state governments.

Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world.

Perhaps it is not surprising that many people think of the Prime Minister and the federal government when they think of ‘the government’. Federal politics tends to dominate the news, while the public’s understanding of our system of government is pretty dismal. Much of the media is pretty ignorant too, although hostility to Liberal leaders is also a factor.

But what these narratives reveal is that the expectations now placed on governments, of any kind, are higher than they have ever been. Whether it is floods, fires, droughts, earthquakes, cyclones or disease outbreaks, there is a popular and growing view that the government should not only be there to pick up the pieces, but should have anticipated the calamity and done everything possible to head it off.

By any standard this is both ridiculous and contradictory. Government is, after all, made up of politicians and public sector bureaucrats. Neither are experts at how the real world works so cannot possibly know what to do.

Most people readily acknowledge that governments are inefficient, bureaucratic and slow, yet somehow cling to the belief that next time will be different and more government will get it right.

In fact, Australia’s problem is too much government. From petty, intrusive local councils to authoritarian state governments and over-taxing, over-spending, ‘more money will fix it’ federal government, there is just too much of it.

The problem with this is obvious. The world is complex and changing – in social attitudes, world economics, geo-politics and of course technology. There is no way that politicians, public sector bureaucrats or regulators can hope to supervise or manage it. They are also often remote from the problems – how, for example, can a bureaucrat in Canberra possibly know enough to make a decision about a cyclone in Broome?

The famous economist Friedrich Hayek noted how difficult it was for people to fathom that local decision making leads to more efficient outcomes than central planning by politicians and public sector bureaucrats.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions.”

Expectations of the role of government have been rising steadily over the last decade.

There was a time, not that long ago, when Australia was a proud volunteer society. Moreover, almost everything was local.

Thousands of kids were inspired to join the surf lifesavers, setting an example for the rest of the world. Volunteer fire fighters saved whole communities. Dozens of charities, not just the Salvation Army and Red Cross, all volunteers, provided help and hope to those in need.

Indeed, prior to the emergence of the welfare state in the second half of the twentieth century, volunteer charities were involved in health care, childcare, education, unemployment and disability support. In the nineteenth century you would have been considered weird if you had predicted that most of these would end up being run by governments. These days you’d be called weird for suggesting volunteers might do them better.

Volunteers are still the first responders in many fire and flood emergencies as families, neighbours and friends rally around. Next are typically agencies such the State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service in NSW, and their equivalents in the other states. Both are still volunteer based, although increasingly under the control of full-time public servants and subject to the inefficiencies of government bureaucracy. In Victoria, the sad decline of the CFA at the hands of the unions is an example of that.

A tragic example of the harm being done to our volunteer society was seen during the Covid pandemic when many volunteers were required to be fully vaccinated. Unvaccinated volunteers were turned away and not permitted to fight fires or rescue flood victims, even when working outside where infection was rare.

Join Mailing List

Even after it became obvious that Covid vaccines did not prevent infection or transmission, the obligation to be fully vaccinated was retained. This was not only unscientific but also destructive. It seriously undermined the capacity of those organisations to help people. In NSW, RFS volunteers on the Central Coast fell by about 50% and in other areas SES volunteers left and some SES stations closed.

It also led to increasing demands for the federal government to bring in the ADF. Obviously ADF members are not volunteers, but they are also not intended to be used as emergency workers. Indeed, using the ADF for anything other than the defence of the country undermines its purpose and reduces its capabilities.

While we sometimes hear governments claiming to honour volunteers, the trend is downhill. The more red tape, bureaucratic oversight and regulation imposed, the more volunteers bail out.

David Leyonhjelm

Got something to say?

Got something to say?

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY