Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Sunday, December 22, 2024
    Random

    Libertarians

    Home Libertarians

    Can libertarianism become a brand in Australia?

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

    Dean Russell, a staff member at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), was the first to propose that America’s classical liberals and individualists rebrand themselves as “libertarians.” In an article published by FEE in 1955, Russell wrote: “Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our use the good and honourable word ‘libertarian.’” 

    That good and honourable term was actually coined, or at least first used in print, by William Belsham in 1789. At that time, and until its political repurposing by Russell, it denoted a distinct philosophical school in the context of debates about free will. The opponents of philosophical libertarians then were necessitarians.

    The context for Russell’s proposal was the perversion of the term “liberal” in the American political context at the hands of big government New Deal interventionists. This development led to the rather awkward, and unusual, situation of political opponents using exactly the same language to define themselves. The libertarian rebrand was, if nothing else, an admission of defeat: the term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals who identified with the tradition of nineteenth century liberalism and the principles of the American revolution. Yet, it proved to be wildly successful and is now in wide usage by America’s liberty lovers in all their diversity and eccentricity. Indeed, there now exists a robust “libertarian” ecosystem in America, replete with think tanks, academics, journalists, magazines, personalities, the odd celebrity and a political party to boot.

    The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia

    However, this linguistic turn, which proved so successful in the American context, has struggled to find relevance and application in other contexts like Australia. Here, “liberal” has stubbornly retained its nineteenth century brand connotations, if not its genuine ideological content. Thanks to the dominance of the Liberal Party as the right-hand pole in Australia’s bipolar political contest, the term “liberal” continues to evoke in the minds of many political consumers something right of centre, as amorphous, incoherent and ill-defined as that may be. This brand phenomenon has served as a bulwark against the kind of leftward semantic evolution that the term “liberal” underwent in early twentieth century America. 

    Moreover, the most ambitious among those who now embrace the term “conservative” to describe their political identity still find the Liberal Party of Australia to be the most conducive vehicle for political influence, notwithstanding pressures and temptations from Australia’s motley collection of right-wing populist minor parties. As such, Australia’s Liberal Party boasts an influential conservative wing, described routinely in left-friendly media outlets as the “hard right” or “far right.” This association of the term “conservative” with “liberal,” let alone “hard right” with “liberal,” is an association that simply does not exist in the American political market. It is a peculiar distinctive of the Australian political landscape, a quirk, as it were. It does, however, provide yet further explanation for why the term “liberal” has resisted its American descent into the semantics of liberal progressivism, at least in the minds of the public, and through them the political vernacular of Australia 

    The term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals

    The fact that Australia’s most successful libertarian party was founded under the name Liberal Democrats in 2001 and only changed its name to the Libertarian party in 2023 speaks volumes about the fortunes of the term “liberal” in Australia (there were legal reasons to change the name). It speaks, on the one hand, to the classical liberal connotations of the term in Australia of 2001, the golden age of Howard’s Broad Church, with its putative synthesis of Millian liberalism and Burkean conservativism. Its name change, on the other hand, in an era in which so-called “moderate” liberals in the Liberal Party stand for woke-lite social policy and a slightly less interventionist economic policy than the Australian Labor Party, signals the final severance of the conjunction “classical” and “liberal in the Australian context, more than 200 years after it arrived in the Australian continent with European settlement, and 68 years after a libertarian rebrand in America. 

    The Liberal Party is now constituted by incompatible liberal progressives and conservatives, neither of whom show any real interest in advancing the classical liberal cause. While an uneasy truce prevails following the sectarian civil war of the immediate past, they now inhabit a rather unhappy marriage of convenience. They sleep in separate bedrooms, but stay together for the sake of the kids, in this case the chance at electoral success. Meanwhile, Australia’s classical liberals have deserted the Liberal Party and thrown in their lot with Australia’s radical liberals to embrace, albeit with some consternation and anxiety, the label “libertarian.”

    Join Mailing List

    The challenge confronting Australia’s nascent libertarian movement, now that it has finally parted ways with the term “liberal,” is to galvanise Australia’s small but passionate band of liberty lovers around a term that is foreign to the Australian political lexicon. More challenging still, there is the task of cultivating a libertarian constituency that prizes and prioritises individual freedom, property rights, unhampered markets, limited government and peaceful international relations in a country whose founding mythos and national identity are not centred around the concept of liberty, as they are in America. The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia, are different species of the genus “liberalism,” each with their own distinct origins, political histories and intellectual development. All political ideologies face a temptation in the Australian context to simply ape and regurgitate the loud, exciting and flamboyant political ideas and innovations that inevitably flow downstream from America to Australia. This is a particular temptation for Australia’s right-wing heirs of the liberal tradition who have recently chosen to embrace the language of the much more highly developed and institutionalised ecosystem in America. If libertarianism is to have any future at all in Australia, it will need to take inspiration from the best that American libertarianism has to offer and adapt, refine and develop it for the unique socio-political environment of Australia. 

    Smoke ‘Em If You Got ‘Em

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    For those of us who still occasionally like to check in on what the mainstream media is doing, there has been a topic that has got chins wagging and jowls flapping lately: “the tobacco wars”. 

    While the mainstream media, in typical fashion, has sensationalised the story, it is true that black and grey market tobacco is abundant in the community.

    BLACK, WHITE AND GREY

    As a (recently quit) smoker, I see it everywhere. My smoker friends brag about the newest place they discovered, with even cheaper prices, while they pull a cigarette out of their fully branded pack. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I saw a drab-brown (plain packaging) pack of cigarettes. And I wouldn’t be much of a libertarian if I didn’t confess that I haven’t bought a pack of cigarettes through a shop compelled to display a “retail tobacco merchant license” in well over a year.

    The obvious appeal of black and grey market tobacco is the near-two-thirds savings. I can buy a 20-pack of Marlboro Reds for under $20, while an authorised tobacco merchant is selling the same pack for over $50 (which I had to look up because it has been that long). And as more shopfronts pop up, the price is pushed down – a testament to the free market. 

    Anybody serious about removing the illicit tobacco market

    Even your poorest friends can afford to smoke chop-chop, illegally grown roll-your-own tobacco, at 50c per gram – a sixth of the price compared to roll-your-own tobacco in the authorised market.

    ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR

    Despite the fact that, I would guess, most smokers are paying less for cigarettes than they have in over a decade, there are serious concerns that accompany a rising illicit market for an addictive product. Bikies and organised crime groups are starting to muscle in on the market, aggressively extorting tobacco merchants (as opposed to the more passive extortion of tobacco tax) and violently vandalising competitors.

    Stories of tobacco shops being vandalised and torched are becoming a near-weekly occurrence. And while I have little sympathy for organised criminals, it is not only criminals being affected: legitimate tobacco merchants are in their crosshairs and innocent victims are inevitably caught in the blaze. So week-in and week-out, the mainstream media trots out some new “expert” on the matter who declares another hair-brained measure will solve this problem once and for all.

    One of the more popular new measures being touted is to implement a licensing system to regulate tobacco merchants, similar to booze. The one problem with that is it already exists and has done precisely nothing to stem the flow of illicit tobacco. In South Australia, where I live, we have a had a tobacco merchant licensing system for as long as I have been a smoker (15 years) and illegal tobacco – and the organised crime that comes with it – is thriving.

    Even your poorest friends can afford to smoke chop-chop, illegally grown roll-your-own tobacco

    STATING THE OBVIOUS

    At the risk of sounding like another idiot who has the solution for this problem once and for all, there is actually an incredibly obvious solution to this problem: lower the price of cigarettes. There is only one way for those “evil”, “scary” big tobacco companies to sell their products at a loss and for merchants to make pennies on the dollar: abolish (or at least significantly reduce) tobacco tax. Well over half the price of the average pack of cigarettes or pouch of roll-your-own tobacco goes to the government in tobacco excise alone. Tobacco, like petrol, is also double-dipped on tax with an additional 10 per cent of GST.

    So while even someone with a cursory understanding of economics knows the only way to combat this problem is to compete on price – especially in a market where almost all forms of non-price competition have been outlawed – the obvious remains unspoken. To even suggest we use the only realistic solution to combat the illicit tobacco market, while also removing the most regressive tax in Australian history, is complete heresy.

    UP IN SMOKE

    Instead, we’ll pile on more regulations, evaporating the few legitimate tobacco merchants left, and “crackdown” on illicit tobacco, as governments continuously claim to do for no avail. We have known for a long time now that prohibition never works, and now we know that a surreptitious prohibition, via ever-increasing prices, achieves the same result.

    Join Mailing List

    Anybody serious about removing the illicit tobacco market, preventing organised crime from gaining a foothold in another industry and legitimately saving the lives of those caught in the collateral damage, knows the answer to this problem. Now it’s time to say it out loud.

    Know Thy Enemy

    By
    James Hol
    -
    1

    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.

    Faulty Towers

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    0

    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.

    Libertarianism is an Ideology, But Not a World View

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

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

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

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

    Trump promised libertarians. Here we go!

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    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.

    The Unholy Union

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    Conceptually, worker unions are quite compatible with libertarian ideology. Workers voluntarily leveraging their collective bargaining power is a perfectly acceptable free-market response to what can oftentimes be an unbalanced relationship between employers and employees. All libertarians would prefer to see these kinds of voluntary associations dealing with some of the natural consequences that markets create, rather than the coercive and violent state trying, unsuccessfully, to regulate them away.

    LABOR MAFIA

    However, the true purpose of the vast majority of mainstream unions in Australia is obvious to anyone who is politically active: to funnel money and membership towards the Labor Party. It is no secret that the only way to advance in the Labor Party is to become a union leader; it’s not even an open secret, it’s basically written on the door. Union thugs also provide a handy tool during election season; ripping down opposition corflutes and intimidating volunteers at polling stations.

    The vast majority of contributions to the Labor Party come from the unions

    This is not to say that there aren’t any good unions out there; plenty of unions do great work, but they are usually smaller and are eventually intimidated out of the space. Similarly, it is possible that in the time union leaders spend factionalising, politicking and satiating their political ambitions, they occasionally help a few workers along the way. But politics always comes first.

    The recent news tying the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) to criminal organisations and intimidation tactics came as very little surprise to anyone who has spent even five minutes in politics. The only thing I was surprised about is that people didn’t know this already. The day we get to see the unions fully exposed, and their relationship with the Labor Party properly examined, is probably still a long way off though.

    UNHOLY TRINITY

    There is one other player in this tripartite corruption ring: industry super funds. In 2019, industry super funds paid over $10 million to Labor-aligned unions – up from just over $4 million ten years earlier. By 2030 it is projected the funds will be pumping over $30 million per year into unions.

    Industry super funds are far and away the biggest political donors in Australia. However, these aren’t donations, it’s just plain corruption. Industry super funds pay their members’ retirement money to unions for vastly inflated and vaguely worded services: sponsorship fees, marketing costs and events. The industry super funds are adamant these are not political donations but legitimate expenses, which the Australian Electoral Commission happily goes along with.

    Additionally, industry super funds invest heavily in union-backed infrastructure projects. The unholy trinity of the industry super funds financing the unions through the retirement savings of millions of Australians, which then go on to funnel that money to the Labor Party, is not only blatantly stealing from hardworking Aussies, but also propping up an inflated sector of the economy with politically influenced investment. These funds are also some of the most prolific when it comes to shareholder activism, driving much of the ESG-investing movement and wokification of corporate Australia.

    Union thugs also provide a handy tool during election season

    PAST PERFORMANCES

    Prime Minister Albanese was heavily criticised for reneging on his election promise to stay out of our super, but the truth is that the Labor Party has been getting a big chunk of our super for years. The recent changes only further entrench industry super funds as the default choice for most Australians and push people further from having some degree of autonomy via self-managed super funds (SMSFs). 

    While much noise was made about the tax changes towards super, and rightly so, the payday superannuation guarantee starting from 1 July 2026 went past largely unnoticed. A change from which smaller funds and SMSFs will see largely no benefit.

    The real beneficiary of these changes is ultimately the Labor Party. The vast majority of contributions to the Labor Party come from the unions – that almost goes without saying. Only 15 per cent of Australia’s workforce is unionised, yet the CFMEU alone donated over $3 million to the Labor Party in the last election year. 

    Join Mailing List

    Industry super funds, with $1.2 trillion assets under management (AUM), control over a third of the AUM of all Australian super funds. There is no doubt that some of the exorbitant fees they charge their members are ending up in the hands of unions, and the money that they are actually investing is heavily skewed towards union-backed projects. Imagine when they can start relying on regular weekly or fortnightly inflows.

    No Headspace Evidence

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Is there a pandemic of mental illness among young people? Is almost one in two young women affected by mental illness? 

    In an opinion article in The Australian, Patrick McGorry, a celebrated psychiatrist, 2010 Australian of the Year and recipient of an Order of Australia Award for his services to youth mental health, claimed this was so.  

    McGorry quoted a paper in The Lancet Psychiatry, of which he is lead author, to argue that mental ill health in young people (defined as 12 to 25) is a silent public health crisis threatening the lives and futures of a whole generation. 

    He says youth mental health has been steadily declining over the past two decades, and suffered a major deterioration driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the measures taken to contain it, and its aftermath. In addition, he says intergenerational wealth inequality, student debt, insecure work, unaffordable housing, climate change, and social media have contributed. 

    The prevalence of mental illness is highest among 18-24 year olds and decreases with age

    It has now “entered a dangerous phase”, he says, with a 50 per cent increase in “diagnosable mental health conditions among 16–25 year-olds since 2007” He believes governments have a responsibility to “wind back harmful policy settings and regulate powerful private forces.” 

    This will take time, he admits, and suggests a more immediate solution is to “reimagine and strengthen” the youth mental health program he pioneered known as headspace, “buttressed by a new specialised, multidisciplinary platform of community health care”.

    This is obviously a campaign for additional public funding of his pet project, a classic case of special pleading. There are hundreds like it, ranging from childhood cancer to aged care. Libertarians tend to dismiss special pleading out of hand, on the basis that it is simply a call for increased government intervention using taxpayers’ money. 

    But most people are not libertarian, and there are legitimate questions: is the situation as McGorry describes? If so, is it any business of the government, and are his solutions appropriate? 

    There is something inherently dubious about a claim that almost half of all young women are suffering from mental ill health. It is certainly not my experience. While it is true that the Covid measures were both painful and unnecessary, is the current generation more mentally fragile than the generations that experienced world wars or the threat of nuclear war? And why should fear of climate change be causing more mental ill health than Ehrlich’s predictions of an overpopulation catastrophe?  

    As for the other factors nominated by McGorry, when has it ever been different? Indeed, the only new element in his list is social media. While it is true that being abused and insulted by strangers online is new, it seems a stretch to suggest it is causing a lot more mental ill health. 

    Patrick McGorry

    What’s needed is evidence relevant to McGorry’s claims: an objective definition of “diagnosable mental health condition”, plus data on the number of cases. 

    His article in The Australian and the Lancet paper had neither. Furthermore, despite the paper being a review of multiple sources, it did not cite any data that substantiated the claims. 

    One source it listed is an Australian study, the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing, undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2020-2022. It reported that 42.9% of people aged 16–85 years had experienced a mental disorder at some time in their life. However, it is entirely based on what respondents told interviewers face to face. 

    Moreover, its definition of mental disorder includes not only illnesses such as depression, psychosis and eating disorders, but also anxiety and substance abuse. In other words, if respondents indicated they felt anxious, or had overdone the substances, it was likely to be classified as mental illness.  

    Youth mental health has been steadily declining over the past two decades, and suffered a major deterioration driven by the COVID-19 pandemic

    Current understanding of mental illness is roughly where our understanding of infectious diseases was a century and a half ago – the causes are not known, and there are no cures. In many cases it cannot even be objectively defined. Almost everyone experiences anxiety in their life, but obviously not everyone characterises it as mental illness. 

    Current therapy involves talking about it (technically known as psychotherapy) and medication. These can be helpful, just as measures to reduce a fever helped with infections prior to the invention of antibiotics, but most cases recover irrespective. This is shown by the fact that the prevalence of mental illness is highest among 18-24 year olds and decreases with age. 

    Join Mailing List

    Indeed, perhaps the best treatment for most so-called mental illness among young people is time. Like pimples and adolescence, they grow out of it. Puberty blues is not merely the name of a movie. 

    What is abundantly clear is that the picture painted by McGorry cannot be substantiated. His long-term solutions are progressive claptrap, while he offers no evidence to show that his headspace project is making a difference and deserves additional government funding. Indeed, if there was such evidence it would probably attract philanthropic support.  

    If there is a sound argument for the government involving itself in youth mental health, McGorry does not offer one. It is not just libertarians who should be sceptical.

    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

    The Art of the Deal

    By
    James Hol
    -
    1

    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 45th 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.

    Identity Politics vs Individual Liberty – A Personal Reckoning

    By
    Scott Harrison
    -
    0

    Few political affiliations draw more stigma and ostracism than white nationalism and neo-Nazism. The fear and disdain these ideologies provoke make them a potent weapon to wield against political opponents. The Victorian Liberal Party’s 18-month internal conflict, centred on allegations of links to neo-Nazis, illustrates how damaging such accusations can be. 

    No one wants to be branded a Nazi, yet both sides of politics continue to flirt with the rhetoric of ‘identity politics’ that fuels such extreme manifestations. As they see it, you are defined by the group, or identity, to which you belong, in particular your gender, race, or sexual preference.  Each side typically targets constituencies based on such identities. 

    Distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked

    I know this personally because for six years of my teenage life, I embodied the most extreme version of the ‘identitarian right.’ My personal experience with racist nationalism positions me to argue that both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence. Moreover, libertarianism was not only the antidote to my own toxic beliefs, but is essential to countering the divisive nature of identity politics.

    For most, being an ‘actual Nazi’ is unimaginable. This extremist, violent ideology requires more than mere exposure to certain ideas — it involves a process of radicalisation shaped by psychology, peer groups, and the surrounding culture. Here, I will focus on how culture and ideas drove my radicalisation, and how they continue to pose a risk to vulnerable young people. It is less autobiography and more cautionary tale.

    The 9/11 attacks were a defining moment in my life. At 12 years old, I became captivated by history and politics, realising that events and ideas shaped the present and were in constant competition. This set me on a path of seeking where I fit in this world.

    At school, teachers often portrayed Australia as a colonial oppressor, its culture irredeemably marred by the sins of white settlement and the White Australia Policy. Multiculturalism, they implied, was both penance and salvation. According to this narrative, Australia had no intrinsic culture, and what existed was enriched only by others. Progressives cast Australians – particularly white males like me – as oppressors. I was the villain in the story of my own country.

    Meanwhile, the Howard government promoted multiculturalism and nationalism, tinged with anti-Islamic sentiment. Events like 9/11 and the Tampa crisis linked immigration to terrorism. John Howard’s refrain – “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” – fuelled public fears. To my 12 year old self, growing up in Melbourne’s working-class northern suburbs with large Lebanese and Turkish populations, these narratives resonated. The progressive view vilified me for my identity, while the conservative view glorified an Australian identity under threat.

    I naturally leaned toward conservatism but carried an anti-authoritarian streak, fuelled by the Iraq War’s WMDs deception. Together, these narratives primed me to adopt an ideology offering both belonging and an outlet for my growing xenophobia and distrust of the establishment.

    In 2005, the Cronulla riots became the spark. At 14 I was seeking answers, and the media’s portrayal of Australia as inherently racist clashed with my own experiences. Conservative leaders, meanwhile, distanced themselves from the working class Australians who were expressing the same fears they had stoked. Disillusioned, I turned to the internet, where white nationalist forums offered an alternative worldview. Here, my conservative leanings devolved into outright racism. By embracing conspiracy theories, including a Jewish global agenda, my transformation into a neo-Nazi was complete.

    For six years, I was deeply involved in this violent subculture, promoting its ideas online and on the streets. This period profoundly shaped me, for better and worse. 

    Both progressivism and conservatism in Australia contribute to its resurgence.

    Thankfully, I began to change. Exposure to libertarian ideas during Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign planted the seeds of a new worldview. Libertarian principles of non-aggression and individual liberty stood in stark contrast to my authoritarian beliefs, offering a path forward based on individualism, voluntary cooperation and mutual respect. It took two years to fully disentangle myself from neo-Nazism, but by 2010 I was free.

    Determined to promote liberty I joined the Liberal Party, hoping to steer it away from identity politics and back toward classical liberalism. This hope was short-lived. After my past was exposed, I resigned – a blessing in disguise, given the party’s continued departure from principles of individual freedom.

    Join Mailing List

    Ten years later, I remain a libertarian, advocating for an ideology that values individuals as unique and capable of forging their own paths. Unlike progressivism and conservatism, which exploit fears and biases to create division, libertarianism fosters cooperation and mutual understanding. It champions less government interference, trusting that most people will live peacefully when left to their own devices.

    Today’s political landscape is more polarised than it was in 2001. Identity politics, central to both the progressive left and conservative right, is the most dangerous driver of radicalisation. By creating ‘us vs them’ mentalities, it breeds resentment and hatred, ultimately leading to violence. The antidote is to focus on individuals, not groups. Libertarianism, which prioritises individual freedom and responsibility, is the ideological counterweight we desperately need. It is an idea whose time has come.

    Was John Locke a Proto-Libertarian?

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

    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.

    The Problem with the Police

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv