Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Personal Liberty

    Home Personal Liberty

    Knee-Jerk Laws Are Bad Laws

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Flag-ban laws should be repealed immediately, and let sunlight be the best disinfectant

    Let’s be clear, here: as a free speech advocate, I don’t believe that states should be banning flags, symbols or slogans of any group. Whether it’s the Nazi hakenkreuz, the communist hammer-and-sickle, a Che Guevara icon or the Hezbollah flag.

    Not only because the same state that can ban the iconography of ideologies I despise can also ban those of which I approve. More importantly, banning flags doesn’t make the ideology disappear, it only drives it out of sight. If there’s a wasp in the room, as C S Lewis said, I like to see it. No matter how uncomfortable it may make me or anyone else.

    I also believe that the law must, if the rule of law is to mean anything, apply equally to all.

    So, if Australian governments are going to – as they have – prosecute individuals for displaying banned Nazi symbols, they must equally vigorously prosecute those showing other banned symbols.

    Such as the Hezbollah flag.

    You can’t purchase a Hezbollah flag on eBay. Purveyors of flags in Australia are prohibited by law from selling it, and without descending into creepy nooks of the internet on the dark web only one online vendor of dubious provenance offers the flag for sale for $US40 ($58) but is out of stock. Perhaps there has been a run on sales.

    Judging by the sheer volume of the ‘moderate Muslim majority’ waving Hezbollah flags in Melbourne and Sydney this past week, this is probably true.

    Yet, despite such flags being prohibited, not one charge has been laid.

    That’s because the relevant laws are a dog’s breakfast.

    Merely displaying the flag in a public space is not sufficient for an arrest to be made. Police need to go through a veritable laundry list of vague law in part because our politicians imposed the reasonable person test – the formless everyman sitting on a Bondi tram – to determine if a person waving the Hezbollah flag at a rally is engaged in the “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred, (which) could incite another person or a group of persons to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”.

    There are various other codicils, and immediately we move into grey areas of interpretation to be left in the hands of police, judges, juries and magistrates.

    The laws were written in haste last year, after Victoria police inexplicably escorted a group of neo-Nazis, who gatecrashed a Kellie-Jay Keen women’s rights rally in Melbourne, to front and centre on the steps of Parliament House. In a typical government, ‘we must be seen to be doing something’, knee-jerk response, both the Victoria and federal Labor government rushed the laws through.

    And, as always, laws written in haste are very bad laws.

    A week later the bill quietly was changed and took the giant leap from prohibiting the display of Nazi symbols where a reasonable person is likely to conclude that a Nazi hakenkreuz is totemic of racial hatred to symbols of proscribed terrorist groups where that same reasonable person may draw a different conclusion.

    The motivation of parliamentarians appears to have been the all-too frequent legislative impulse: “We need to do something. This is something. So, let’s do this” […]

    This is a mess of the government’s making based on cobbled-together law. The responsibility for the shambles extends to the entire federal parliament, which waved through the bill late last year in an orgy of self-congratulation. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Act 2023 is black-letter law that attempts to solve two distinct problems with one muddled law.

    It may be useful in prosecuting those who tote Nazi symbols in public or online but it is less clear how it may serve to prohibit other symbols of racial hatred including Hezbollah’s flag.

    Now, the same politicians who passed such obviously bad laws are pointing the finger of blame at police. Anyone but themselves, of course. But police can only try and prosecute the laws the politicians have passed. As Kerry Packer once told the Senate, he didn’t write the laws they accused him of using to minimise his tax (which he bluntly agreed he did), they did. 

    Join Mailing List

    If they don’t like the outcome of the bad laws they write, they have no one else to blame but themselves.

    Flag banning is very bad law. It should be repealed immediately and let sunlight be the best disinfectant.

    Enemy of the state

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    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. 

    Senator Jacqui Lambie

    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.

    What is at Stake in Religious Freedom

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    1

    Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia. This has a lot to do with the fact that it is not really a freedom per se, so much as a collection of more fundamental individual freedoms with which people are much more familiar: freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. 

    What makes religious freedom a distinct concept is the unique content of the conscience, thought and speech in question, and the unique purposes and function of association and assembly conducted in its name. 

    For example, religions represent the most ancient belief systems still in existence in our modern societies, and this ancient pedigree sometimes puts the religion, and its adherents, at odds with more recent cultural changes. Religions also tend to consist of more comprehensive and determinate worldviews than are typical of secular culture. 

    A society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is.

    Secular world views, to the extent that they exist at all, tend to be more open, indeterminate and relativist than religious world views (militant secularists are the exception that proves the rule). 

    The comprehensiveness of the typical religious world view, and the ethical systems and modes of living that embody and express them, can make it difficult, if not impossible, for the religious believer to socially compartmentalise their faith, ensuring social friction in a secular, pluralistic society like Australia. Moreover, religious world views are held by a decreasing percentage of the Australia population, progressively widening the gap between the religious believer and the cultural mainstream. 

    Evidence of this widening cultural distance can be seen in the increasing demand for faith-based schools and homeschooling, as religious believers seek to ensure that their children can be educated according to their faith and world view, free from the corruption of the dominant non-religious state ideology and the secular values and mores that now permeate society.

    It is a combination of the unique content of religious belief, on the one hand, and its socially relevant practices and public activities, on the other, that create the kinds of tensions and dilemmas at the heart of the debate about religious freedom. The pointy end of this debate relates to faith-based schools, which have to pastorally manage the presence of same-sex attracted and gender dysphoric students enrolled in them while remaining faithful to the religious teaching and ethos for which the school was established in the first place. This can be particularly vexed in circumstances of open enrolment, where children of parents belonging to the establishing faith of the school are enrolled alongside children of parents who do not belong to it, leading to competing expectations and demands on the school.

    However, the key thing to bear in mind about religious freedom, and something often forgotten in public discussion, is that it is simply an expression and manifestation of the most fundamental individual freedoms that constitute a free society, and which most citizens take for granted as self-evident goods. As such, any restriction of religious freedom is by default a restriction of either freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of association, freedom of assembly or some combination thereof. 

    Religious freedom is poorly understood in Australia.

    That said, none of the fundamental freedoms that comprise religious freedom is absolute. All individual freedoms are subject to necessary limitations and compromises in the name of protecting individuals from violence, aggression and unjustified coercion. The terrorist cannot invoke religious freedom in order to justify the planning and execution of a mass casualty attack according to some perceived divine revelation or injunction. 

    The challenge for a society with a mixed population of (diverse) religious and non-religious citizens is to properly identify the necessary limitations on religious freedom, without unduly compromising and undermining the fundamental individual freedoms that are essential to the creation and sustenance of a free society, the only kind in which human flourishing is truly possible. 

    Join Mailing List

     The boundaries of religious freedom, which is to say a society’s tolerance level for the expression and practice of religious belief, is a good indicator and test of how free a society genuinely is. 

    Anyone who professes to value freedom of conscience, thought, speech, association and assembly must care about religious freedom, and must want to see society recognise, preserve and defend ample social space for the practice and expression of religion—not because one necessarily accepts the metaphysical and moral claims of any particular religion, but because one can see the inextricable connection between religious freedom and the fundamental freedoms that constitute a free society, for theist, atheist and agnostic alike.

    Use a VPN, but don’t stop there

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    1

    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.

    Why We Should Oppose Government Efforts to Age Restrict Social Media

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    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.

    The Libertarian Perspective on the Controversy of XY Boxers

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    The recent controversy surrounding two boxers, Imane Khelif from Algeria and Lin Yu-ting from Taiwan, who won gold medals in the women’s events at the Paris Olympics, has ignited a worldwide debate. The key issue at the heart of this controversy is whether athletes with XY chromosomes who live as female, should be allowed to compete in women’s sports, given the potential genetic advantages that male physiology may give. From a libertarian standpoint, this debate also intersects with individual freedom, freedom of association, and the role of competition among organisations.

    The Facts: No Dispute on XY Chromosomes

    First and foremost, it is undisputed that the two athletes in question have XY chromosomes. This genetic marker is typically associated with male physiology, which includes traits like increased muscle mass, greater bone density, and overall physical strength. These traits can provide a significant competitive advantage in sports, particularly in a physically demanding sport like boxing.

    The focus should remain on whether allowing athletes with XY chromosomes to compete in women’s events upholds the integrity of the sport

    IOC’s Policy Shift: From Gender Testing to Passport Recognition

    Historically, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) disqualified women with XY chromosomes from competing in women’s events. However, in 1999 it stopped mandatory gender testing, a move influenced by the growing recognition of the complexities of gender identity. The IOC now accepts the gender listed on an athlete’s passport as the sole criterion for gender classification in sports. This policy shift has been both praised for its inclusivity and criticised for undermining fairness in women’s sports.

    The Issue of Fairness: A Level Playing Field?

    The principle of fairness in sports is paramount. In boxing, for example, athletes are not allowed to compete across different weight classes because doing so would create an inherent imbalance in competition. The same logic should apply when considering the participation of XY chromosome athletes in women’s events. The genetic advantages associated with XY chromosomes, such as greater physical strength, raise ethical questions about whether it is fair to allow these athletes to compete against women with XX chromosomes.

    The IBA’s Role: Irrelevant to the Core Issue

    Some have questioned the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) stance, with allegations of being pro-Russia or corrupt. However, these concerns are irrelevant. The focus should remain on whether allowing athletes with XY chromosomes to compete in women’s events upholds the integrity of the sport. Notably, neither of the athletes in question disputed the IBA’s decision, with Imane Khelif initially challenging the results before later withdrawing the objection.

    Respecting Identity vs. Maintaining Fairness

    As a libertarian, I fully respect these athletes for competing to the best of their abilities. It is perhaps a sad reality that they have XY chromosomes, which presents challenges in their personal lives and public identities. However, respecting them as individuals does not mean that they should be allowed to compete in women’s events where their genetic makeup could provide an unfair advantage. The core principle of fair competition must take precedence in this context.

    Individual Freedom and Freedom of Association

    Libertarianism strongly advocates for individual freedom, including the right to self-identify and even to change one’s gender. Individuals should have the freedom to disclose whatever gender they wish and live according to their identity without coercion from the state or other entities. However, this freedom also extends to organisations like the IOC and IBA, which should have the autonomy to set their own rules regarding gender recognition and participation criteria. If athletes or the public disagree with these policies, they should have the freedom to boycott these organisations and seek alternative platforms that align better with their values.

    It is undisputed that the two athletes in question have XY chromosomes

    The Role of Organisational Competition

    In a free market, competition among organisations like the IOC and IBA ensures that those which offer the fairest and most transparent rules will ultimately succeed. If one organisation’s policies are viewed as unfair, another organisation with more balanced criteria could emerge and gain popularity. Over time, this competition would lead to a natural selection of policies that best serve the interests of athletes and sports fans alike.

    Censorship and Free Speech

    The controversy also touches on broader societal issues such as censorship and free speech. After winning their gold medals, one of the athletes, Khalif, filed a legal complaint against what they termed online harassment. Although online harassment can be a nasty issue, the sanctity of free speech must be upheld. Some celebrities like Richard Dawkins complained about Facebook’s censorship after his post suggesting genetically male boxers should not fight women in Olympics. Censorship is censorship, whether it’s initiated by private entities or the government. The truth can only emerge in the “free speech town square,” where ideas can be debated freely, and the so-called “misinformation and disinformation” are not censored but countered with better arguments.

    Join Mailing List

    Conclusion: Upholding Fairness in Sports

    In conclusion, while recognising the challenges faced by women with XY chromosomes, it is essential to maintain fairness in women’s sports by upholding the principle that genetically male athletes should not compete in women’s events. By allowing market forces and free association to shape the rules, we may strike a balance that honours both individual rights and the essential fairness of competitive sports. 

    Got something to say?

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

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

    Libertarianism is an Ideology, But Not a World View

    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

    Carpet Call: The Imperfect Gift of Religious Freedom

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols) is a clever guy. 

    As Robert McCall (aka Denzel Washington) says in the movie Equalizer 2 to Miles, a troubled teenager: ‘It takes talent to make money, Miles, but it takes brains to keep it’. 

    Regardless of one’s taste in music, there’s no doubting John Lydon had talent – and brains.

    ‘Imperfection is at the heart of life’, Lydon once said. ‘Imperfection is the greatest gift of all.’

    ‘Arabic rug makers will make their work perfect except for one tiny stitch, because nothing is perfect in the eyes of God. Only God is perfect. I think that is magnificently intelligent’.

    Before the 2022 federal election, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to overhaul religious protection laws in Australia. 

    Under existing law, when hiring teachers or workers, faith-based organisations are able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity via an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

    Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational

    The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) now says that exemption should be scrapped. No legislation has yet been introduced.

    Not content to wait for the Federal Government to act, activists have shifted to the old ‘State by State’ stalking horse approach – find the most amenable State, introduce the law there and then get other States to adopt it one by one. Once a few States have adopted the new law, the Federal Government is then pressured into doing the same. It’s a tried-and-tested model of creeping change.

    Former SA Greens Senator and now Greens SA Upper House member Robert Simms is proposing to introduce legislation into the SA Parliament next month which would remove all exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

    Robert Simms

    There are some things people will not be dictated to or lectured about. One of those is their faith or their morals – particularly what they teach their children. They will certainly not be brow-beaten or cowed into submission by being called bigots or homophobes.

    The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those. It is about discrimination against religious people. The Left may call for tolerance but what they really want is for everyone to agree with and endorse – even celebrate – their view of the world. They are not interested in debate or argument; they simply want the legislative power of the state to force everyone to comply.

    If being free means anything, it means citizens having the right to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children conforms with their own convictions – as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory. 

    It means having freedom of conscience, and the freedom to believe and practice the core tenets and values of a person’s faith. It is the state’s role to protect those rights.

    There’s no doubt that the Left is out to undermine our freedoms. They’re coming for our churches, our schools, our faith-based organisations, our farms, our mines, our cars and, most of all, our children. They’re also coming for our old people with their euthanasia packs, for our about-to-be-born babies with their grotesque abortion laws, and they’re coming to indoctrinate our primary school children. They’re also coming for Christmas Day and Australia Day and Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. These people mean business.

    People and faith-based organisations – schools, hospitals, aged care providers and charities – should not have to rely on exemptions from anti-discrimination laws to function in accordance with their faith. 

    The Left talks about equality and tolerance but this religious freedom debate is not about either of those.

    They should, by right, have the freedom to select people as they see fit. 

    Political parties grant that right to themselves because they believe, quite rightly, that the political allegiance of a job applicant matters. 

    In environmental groups, views about climate change are relevant; in women’s shelters, gender is very important. 

    Saying you can only become a member of a chess club if you play chess is not discriminating against people who don’t play chess! 

    In ethnic clubs and institutions, ethnicity is sensible and practical. 

    We accept all these differences. 

    And in faith-based organisations, faith matters. 

    Forcing faith-based schools to become indistinguishable from secular schools with respect to staffing is irrational. After all, no-one is forced to work for a faith-based organisation or send their children to a faith-based school where all the staff follow that particular faith.

    Expressions of faith by a person or faith-based organisations must be declared lawful. Statutory exemptions are totally inadequate. Exemptions granted can just as easily be withdrawn – as is now being proposed.

    Join Mailing List

    The right to religious freedom must be treated as a pre-eminent right and be recognised and protected. Human Rights Commissions should have no role to play. 

    A Commonwealth law, by reference to its Objects clauses, must recognise religious freedom as pre-eminent and override all state and territory anti-discrimination laws.

    To paraphrase John Lydon, while such a law may be imperfect, it would be a magnificent gift.

    CFMEU Should NOT Exist in the First Place

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

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

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

    Distortion of Labour Markets

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

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

    Infringement on Individual Liberty

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

    Perpetuation of Corruption and Inefficiency

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

    The Case for Abolishing Unions

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

    Conclusion

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

    The Coming Populist Revolt

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    Populism occurs when the masses revolt against the elites’ view of the world. Elite opinion does not often deal directly with popular opinion, that is, with the people who have to pay for elite opinion. When elites get it wrong, the masses revolt through the ballot; the Voice referendum being a good example. The question is, when is the next chance?

    Currently, the elite consensus on issues like net zero, immigration and identity politics is so far removed from the reality of the masses that it is no wonder they are pushing back. The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

    International

    Net zero is a preposterous notion. The world population is eight billion people. By 2050, it could be 10 billion people, a 25 per cent increase. These people will need energy. World energy consumption is 600 BTUs. By 2050, it could be 900 BTUs, a 50 per cent increase: more people, higher living standards, more energy. Electricity generation will rise mainly in the Asia-Pacific among developing nations. Renewables do not generally feature in developing countries’ energy mixes anywhere near developed nations’ proportions.

    Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia.

    Of 144 nations tracked for net zero, only 26 have placed in law their commitment to net zero by 2050 (or sooner). For example, the Maldives has pledged net zero by 2030 but it has no plan or accountability mechanism; it is pure hot air. Even Goody Two-Shoes Finland leaves out aviation and shipping and has plans but no mechanism for carbon removal. The US (2050), Russia (2060), China (2060), India (2070) and Brazil (2050) have a ‘policy document’, but nothing in law.

    Australia has a plan written in law that is sure to kill the nation’s wealth. Industrial and economic mayhem, loss of reliable energy and higher energy prices will reduce living standards. Minister Bowen’s deployment targets are logistically impossible in the time frame.

    Kenneth Schultz estimates a total cost of $1.4 trillion for the Coalition’s renewables-nuclear option. He estimates the cost for Labor’s renewables-battery option at $4.4 trillion, nine times the federal government’s total annual revenue.

    National 

    Migration in Europe and Australia is dangerous at levels that challenge national unity. Numbers count. If one million Palestinians settled in Australia in a short period, for example, the result would undermine Australian society. Palestinians would settle in a few suburbs and recreate a Palestinian society, i.e. one that recreates the hatred extant in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Values also count. Australia would do well to distinguish migrants by the nature of their observance, which is apparent in the laws on marriage, succession, or rape in marriage among our key Islamic migrant source countries: Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. A striking feature of those laws is that they distinguish the application of the law by religion. Religion first; the rule of law second. The question is how to distinguish this at an individual level. Classing people by source country is too crude and unfair, but not to distinguish people would be foolhardy. Why should Australia invite those unlikely to integrate or, worse, become an enemy?

    Those who appreciate the benefits of the nation-state would support Prime Minister John Howard’s view that, ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’ Howard and the Australian electorate recognised that some people are not welcome as they are unlikely to fit in. In the long term, Australia will be much more Indian and Chinese. Of the three million permanent migrants who arrived in Australia since 2000, almost 450,000 were from India, and nearly 350,000 were from China. The assumption of integration must be reinforced.

    The easy assumptions of integration post-World War II no longer hold. Since 2022, the Netherlands has required a substantial investment from a person applying for permanent residence before that privilege is granted. The civic integration requirements are set out in the Civic Integration Act 2021. The point of the Netherlands law is that applicants must be sufficiently integrated before they become permanent.

    The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

    Personal

    Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia. They are free to sing the praises of Palestine. Homosexuals are free to marry and raise children. But the trans lobby wants to abolish gender, which is dangerous to the mental health of trans people. Sex must be understood in evolutionary terms. There must be sperm and eggs for reproduction. Two women do not create a child, and two men do not create a child. They may care for them, and we wish them well. The proposition that sex is not binary, that it is socially determined, is dangerous, especially to those who find that they are not at ease with their sex and want to reassign their sex to suit their ‘gender’.

    Anyone should be free to express themselves as male or female. But when sex is detached from reproduction, there are consequences. As Zachary Elliott argues in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth, ‘If we abandon sex as an important category in our society, how can we conduct safe and effective medical research and treatment; fight sex-based injustices; record accurate crime statistics; maintain fair, safe, and competitive sports categories; and implement equal opportunities for both sexes?’

    There is a claim that almost two per cent of the population is intersex, neither male nor female. The numbers consist almost entirely of those who suffer developmental disorders, such as late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. People with these conditions account for nearly all the males or females who do not appear to be one or the other. The disorders occur in nature and do not result in good health. They are not socially determined.

    Join Mailing List

    Populism in the service of correcting the madness of net zero, overplayed migration and undermined sexual identity are ground zero for the populist fightback. The masses await the right leader and the right policies. Populism? More please!

    Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research 

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    123...12Page 1 of 12
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv