Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Philosophy

    Home Philosophy

    What Happens After Saturday?

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    3
    hf

    She was a young tall Indian beauty, perhaps a model, but maybe an engineering student. She passed me as I handed out No how-to-vote cards to prospective voters at the pre-poll in Brisbane. She called to the exuberant Yes booth worker beside me, “I’m not a citizen, I can’t’ vote, but I am with you, why wouldn’t I, just look at me!”

    Colour solidarity seems alive and well in this referendum. Prime Minister Albanese has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with leaders of various ethnic associations, feeding the shallow thoughts of our Indian non-citizen: that colour should define us, and divide us, forever. What a poor leader is the Prime Minister, and what a despicable proposition is the Voice.

    The referendum was an act of ego by elites who have rarely acted in the common interest.

    Others were not so shallow as our young visitor. A PNG native took my No card, and several Malay women, along with lots of white Aussies who just winked, and took the card. I have travelled the country speaking to forums, and while most No voters that I spoke to are quiet Australians, they can spot a crude grab for power that is the Voice. Emotions are running high, mostly on the Yes side, such is their moral hubris. Because of them, the narrative will be that there will be a fair bit of putting Humpty Dumpty together again after Saturday.

    Prime Minister Albanese will have to wear his constant castigation of Australians for not accepting the “gracious gift” of the Trojan Horse. Many Yes supporters, smug in the certainty they were right, will think of their fellow citizens as ill-informed or hard-hearted.

    Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese

    For the majority, the best way to put the Humpty Dumpty narrative to bed is to realise it doesn’t exist. The referendum was an act of ego by elites who have rarely acted in the common interest. Mining company leaders donated millions of corporate dollars to the Yes cause at the same time environmentalists were making mincemeat of legal procedures over ‘inadequate’ consultation with indigenous peoples on new mines.

    Charities poured millions into Yes coffers, undercutting their donor’s intentions to help the poor and instead helping middle class Aboriginal leaders to the spoils of office. Celebrities can return to their magazines and make-up mirrors assured of their dinner party invitations. Academics can write deep analyses of the faults in the minds of lesser beings outside of the walls of the academy, or more accurately, outside of their control.

    Australians are not broken. They will have served democracy well. They can return to their day jobs on Monday, while those who have an enduring interest will be left to pick over the entrails of Aboriginal politics. In this task I want your help: Aboriginal leaders in the Yes camp may have declared that they will “fall silent” or never again “perform a welcome to country” should the referendum crash and burn, but they will not give up their jobs in the industry.

    Shallow thoughts … that colour should define us, and divide us, forever. What a poor leader is the Prime Minister, and what a despicable proposition is the Voice.

    With your help, we must overturn the separatist ideology that drives this industry. If you want to stop the next generation of failed programs and destroyed lives you should join with those who want to reclaim a sensible path to a decent life for Aborigines.

    Ethno-separatist ideology at odds with liberal democracy

    Race-based policies must be phased out. Need, not race, is the new mantra. We at Close the Gap Research will resume work on Sunday. It will be a long haul, winning one battle is but a step in winning the war. Please join us.

    Gary Johns is Principal of CloseTheGapResearch.org.au

    We Ignore The Erosion of Democracy At Our Peril

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    1

    Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that if a republic is to live long, it is necessary to draw it back often toward its beginning.

    “For all the beginning of sects, republics, and kingdoms must have some goodness in them, by means of which they may regain their first reputation and their first increase. Because in the process of time, that goodness is corrupted, unless something intervenes to lead it back to the mark, it of necessity kills the body.”

    It is now time for Australia, and all modern western democracies, to be led back to the starting point, less necessity kills our body politic.

    No political system has ever been immune to corruptible processes.

    Now, the concept of going “back” will raise the ire of progressives. It could even unnerve libertarians, the thinking being that any hint of the status quo or traditionalism is the sole purview of conservatives.  But I would remind them of what Thomas Paine said, that when government “operates to create an increased wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.”

    Thomas Paine

    We could argue over the difference between Paine’s reform and Machiavelli’s drawing back to the beginning, but as a historian, I stand by the view that unless one contemplates how a thing starts, the solution to improving it can be neither understood nor solved.

    A searing reminder of how far Australia has fallen from political grace can be seen in the erosion of habeus corpus, articulated brilliantly by Jaimie Stevenson in her article, Imprisoned with Zero Charges, noting that this “unchecked authority fundamentally challenges the principles upon which our democratic society is based.”

    Surely, this one issue alone requires us to be drawn back to our beginning. But if we need more reminders of the importance to look in the rear-view mirror, it can be found in Kenelm Tonkin’s explanation of the Tocqueville Matrix.

    When government operates to create an increased wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.

    It is not new, this thing known as recovery of freedom. In 509 BC, Lucius Junius Brutus rescued Rome from the corruption and pride of kings gone bad. After two hundred years the monarchy had degenerated into vileness at the hands of one man vested with too much power.

    It is not a stretch to draw parallels with life in Australia from 2020 – 2022 under the direction of Scott Morrison as Prime Minister, who set up an unconstitutional National Cabinet, continued to this day by current leader, Anthony Albanese; and who allowed unrestricted power to state premiers for carte blanche hard-line rule over their populations. Daniel Andrews’ iron fist in Victoria demonstrates that it is all too easy for one man to think himself a god. Though he was not alone in his authoritarian bent, he was by far the most brutal of all the state’s leaders.

    We can ruminate on our demise, or we can each do something to regain the goodness which has been corrupted by time. This is a process in itself; documenting what is wrong by looking back to what provided the foundation upon which democracy was built. And it does not require the commanding presence of public figures.

    It is now time for Australia, and all modern western democracies, to be led back to the starting point, less necessity kills our body politic.

    In Cicero’s dialogues between past heroes of the Roman Republic, Scipio Africanus said of Lucius Brutus:

    “No one is a mere private citizen when the liberty of his fellows needs protection.”

    For those who question the relevance of being drawn back to beginnings, I urge you to consider the increase in dystopian and futuristic writing and ask yourself why it is occurring.

    John Goddard writes fast fiction; dystopian ponderings, often with a question as to what went before. In a recent article entitled Mephistopheles, his dystopian character questions the relevance of old-world heroes, that they have “no place in our modern mythology.” It is a hellscape scenario in which to question anything significant from the old world would be to bring down the wrath of the state upon oneself.

    That people lament the absence of old heroes; or sound the alarm about the deterioration of valued democratic safeguards like habeus corpus; or feel compelled to encourage us moderns to look back to invigorating figures like Alexis de Tocqueville, surely tells us that the past does hold significance in the quest to understand ourselves and our societies.

    No political system has ever been immune to corruptible processes. And now it is our time to act. It may even require a “going to the mattresses” approach, not as a physical war, but as an intellectual war between the people and those we put in office to represent us.

    The Cult of Authority

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    Earlier this year, I described how the modern political left has largely been annexed by authoritarians, with those who would have been considered left wing not that long ago exiled from their political home and outcast as “extremists”.

    Perhaps it should come as no surprise that authoritarians constantly rely on a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority.

    THE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

    According to this fallacy, relevance relies on qualifications and standing within certain entities; the merits of their argument be damned! Its reliance on authority saw a particular renaissance during the depths of the Covid tyranny.

    Dr. Anthony Fauci, a fallible human, was deified – considered incapable of wrong. The mere fact that Fauci made a pronouncement was sufficient reason to strip millions of their autonomy and liberty. No need to get caught up in the triviality of whether that claim was factual. Many other politicians and bureaucrats around the world were similarly granted God-like status.

    Meaningful public discourse is reserved only for those properly authorised.

    ‘But you’re not an epidemiologist’ became the mantra of the cult of authority. The simpletons dare not question the holy doctrine of Anthony Fauci and his cadre; they are not qualified!

    THE REAL EPIDEMIC

    It doesn’t take much to realise this insidious logical fallacy is prevalent in nearly all areas of modern cultural and political debate.

    Don’t question climate change, ‘you’re not a scientist!’

    Don’t question the education system, ‘you’re not a teacher!’

    Don’t question the Bible, ‘you’re not a Christian!’

    The few contrarians are either excluded or have their qualifications either discounted or stripped from them.

    It is so prevalent that merely being part of a certain class entitles you to greater input in debate: ‘how dare you discuss abortion, you’re not a woman!’ Indeed, the concept of the Voice to Parliament is predicated on the fallacy that only indigenous people are qualified to discuss indigenous issues.

    NUANCE SHINES

    Public policy development, when done properly, requires balancing various multi-disciplinary analyses based on the merit and relevance of each. We do not restrict discussions on road policy exclusively to motor mechanics. While the input of a mechanic may be useful, it would be short sighted to solely rely on it.

    However, when it comes to contentious and important issues, we take a single-minded approach. For the past three years, the “success” of the Covid response was measured by one metric alone: Covid deaths. Liberty, the economy and all-cause mortality be damned: if the number of deaths in the headlines was lower than yesterday’s number, it was a win!

    Politicians and bureaucrats around the world were similarly granted God-like status.

    Forget about how many people died because they were turned away from routine medical appointments. ‘How dare you question the epidemiologists!’

    When economists warn of the serious consequences from prolonged lockdowns, the response is: ‘They’re not epidemiologists!’

    Don’t question whether subjecting free citizens to extensive home detention could possibly lead to increased mental health issues. #DonutDay!

    THE FOREVER BUREAU

    Every consensus opinion began as a fringe viewpoint, often propagated by a contrarian in their field – sometimes even an outsider. The insidious aspect about the appeal to authority is that it prevents this from happening, leaving us locked in perpetual status quo, much to the delight of the establishment.

    The few contrarians are either excluded or have their qualifications either discounted or stripped from them. Dr. Robert Malone, often credited as being the inventor of mRNA technology, was silenced and discredited. The authoritarians said: ‘he’s not a real doctor.’ Dr. Jordan Peterson was sanctioned by the College of Psychologists for venturing outside the authorised script on gender issues.

    … authoritarians constantly rely on a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority

    When you apply this logical fallacy, the merits of argument, empirical evidence and even your own personal experience becomes irrelevant. People would sooner question their own eyes than the musings of some two-bit bureaucrat. Shove someone in front of a camera and put the title ‘expert’ in the chyron and they are suddenly incapable of error.

    Nothing changes. Innovation dies. Society stagnates. Dissidents are silenced. The marketplace of ideas is shut down. Meaningful public discourse is reserved only for those properly authorised. Which flavour of tyranny shall it be today? Red tyranny or blue tyranny?

    Anybody is qualified to debate any topic and the value of their input must be determined by the points they raised, not the honorifics after their name.

    A Different Way to Scratch Your Liberty Itch

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    2

    Who is John Galt?

    To those who know, this question is rhetorical. It is a secret ‘handshake’ among fans of Ayn Rand and her seminal work, Atlas Shrugged.

    Reading Atlas Shrugged profoundly changed the way I viewed life, society and the world. It was like a stranger had tapped me on the shoulder, pointed out that I was sitting on a pile of jigsaw pieces, and helped me put the pieces together. Afterward, instead of being confused by the variety of pains in my ass, I was contentedly gazing at a beautiful picture of the world. It changed my life.

    … the Covid sham of 2020 was Atlas Shrugging

    The climax of Atlas Shrugged could be summarised as: civil society devolved because the government kept ratcheting up its abuse and extortion of the most productive and competent people in society, based on the socialist argument of “needing” to “help” the ever increasing “needs” of the “needy”. So the productive people left.

    This is relevant today because the Covid sham of 2020 was Atlas Shrugging. We all felt the earth move. If you have read Atlas Shrugged then you know where the story goes, and you know what the smart people do. We leave.

    So I left.

    The obvious question, then, was where to go? Again, Atlas Shrugged proved instructional. The protagonist and her friends did not leave one declining socialist kleptocracy to go to another declining socialist kleptocracy. They built a new society from scratch. They did not run away; they ran toward opportunity.

    Galt’s Gulch. A new society for the productive and competent

    Fortunately, escaping government suffocation no longer requires living on an island like Robinson Crusoe. There are numerous countries where you might be surprised to find a superior quality of life to Australia, at a lower cost, with palpably more freedom.

    Consider the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as an example. The UAE is a not a liberal democracy. It is run like a business. The rulers explicitly want successful, talented and wealthy people to move all of their wealth and business there. So they built cities with everything that their target market wants: zero tax, no crime, spotlessly clean, mind-boggling architecture and world class banks, hospitals, schools, facilities, activities, food etc. They then made immigration easy: register a company and self-sponsor your residency. It costs just a few thousand dollars.

    Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    The UAE offers a unique solution to the libertarian dilemma of how to balance individual freedom with security and societal order. Instead of a contrived internal democratic process, living in the UAE is a voluntary transaction. You do not have a right to free speech, to protest or to vote. Your money and your feet are your voice and vote. Your rights are: take it, or leave it.

    One of the most freeing factors in the UAE – especially for anyone who operated a business in Australia – is the absence of fear of Government extortion. The income tax rate is zero. No tax means no criminal tax avoidance. And that eliminates government treating tax residents like criminals.

    Other countries have taken notice of the success of the UAE and Dubai, and are rolling out the red carpet to entrepreneurs. For example, the small nation of Georgia in eastern Europe offers an entrepreneur’s visa, with residency and a paltry 1% tax rate on earnings up to $AU375,000/year. The capital, Tbilisi, is a beautiful, classically European city. It is objectively safer than Australia, and with a cost of living around 1/3rd, or less.

    Tbilisi, Georgia

    Dubai and Georgia are just two examples among numerous countries that offer extraordinary advantages, along with a quality of life that belies their reputations of 10-20 years ago. Globalisation and the commoditisation of technology means that western nations no longer have a monopoly on modern living. Friendly people, sealed roads, modern homes, fast internet, good coffee and Gucci stores are everywhere, including most “emerging” or “developing” nations.

    So I left.

    The factor determining the viability of leaving Australia, for most people, is money. If you have no assets, no education, and expect $200,000/yr to hold a road sign, Australia is probably the only country that will work for you. But if you, like me, are able to generate an income from anywhere – or if you have made your money already – you have an array of options to increase your freedom, improve your lifestyle, eliminate or reduce taxes and escape Marxism. Just exclude Canada, the EU, UK, US and New Zealand from your shortlist.

    Australia is an extraordinary country with extraordinary potential. But it is hard to argue that it is heading in the right direction politically or economically. The natural inclination is to want to fight for the rights and freedoms that the West has always been so justifiably proud of. But there is an alternative: you can leave. It is another way to scratch your Liberty itch.

    Welcome To Free Speech

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    2

    A non-illustrated guide to where conservatives continually fall short on a key pillar of liberty… 

    Libertarians and conservatives might be friends on certain issues, often shoved into the same corner by the ‘progressive’ left, but it’s time we libertarians took a hard stance on free speech.

    James Hol’s recent commentary regarding the proposed ‘misinformation’ bill reflected an attitude towards freedom of speech and expression that is generally shared across the entirety of the centre-right.

    However, conservatives are not yet ready to defend the speech and expression of those they don’t agree with. Purporting to pick and choose who has access to free expression is a dark pathway to liberty.

    Free speech is very easy to defend when you agree with the speech that is being censored – the true test of principle is to defend all speech, regardless of your personal view on what is being expressed. Yet apparently Yumi Stynes’ ‘graphic’ book titled Welcome to Sex should be ‘wrapped in black plastic’ and sold in a restricted manner akin to a pornographic magazine according to the self-confessed ‘conservative patriot’ Senator Ralph Babet. 

    Comments from Stynes that she would be ‘comfortable’ with an 8 year-old child reading the book, and its availability in major retailer chains, have sparked community outrage at the supposed accessibility of such material to children. Yet what does it say about the rights of parents if conservative commentators feel entitled to decide what is suitable for other people’s children? It raises questions on our perceptions of the role of parents too – is it their job to manage what their child has access to, or is that the job of government and society at large? 

    You have to wonder at what point any more restrictive approach by government towards curating children’s material could be weaponized against conservatives. This of course is the fundamental weakness in the conservative take on this issue: the lack of foresight as to how restricting the speech and expression of one group weakens it for us all in the end. Furthermore, all the attention and furore over the content of the book led to it becoming a bestseller. 

    Controversial book ‘Welcome To Sex’ attracted conservative calls for it to be banned

    It’s not the first time so-called ‘freedom friendly’ MPs have actually sought to curb the rights of those they disagree with. In February, Liberal Senator Alex Antic introduced a private member’s bill that sought to impose harsh criminal penalties on ‘incitement to trespass, cause property damage or traffic disruption’ (paraphrased). This was clearly an attack on extinction rebellion type traffic protests and the activities of animal rights protesters at slaughterhouses. 

    Yet it doesn’t take much imagination to see how the same laws could easily have been imposed on leaders of protests against vaccine mandates. This bill was yet another reactionary, populist thought bubble that demonstrates the folly of conservatism as a philosophical vehicle to protect individual rights and reduce the size of government. 

    As seen by the impact of boycotts and negative PR directed at companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Gillette, Target and Big W, it is much more effective to fight bad ideas and bad speech with consumer action as opposed to legislative action. It is also fundamentally moral – the market will ultimately determine the social licence companies have to comment on social or political issues by rewarding or punishing them via consumers. 

    Good ideas don’t require force, and bad ideas don’t require banning. As libertarians we must fight both progressives and conservatives who seek to censor or ban speech they dislike.

    They will invoke the innocence of children, the plight of minority groups or the collective ‘harm’ caused by disinformation, but history tells us that those doing the censoring are never the good guys. 

    The only role politicians have with regards to free speech is to protect it, and the best way to protect free speech is to amend the Australian constitution, enshrining the right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly.

    Liberty and National Borders

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    1

    Libertarianism is all about the freedom of individuals from coercion. Libertarians believe the proper role of government is defined by JS Mill’s harm principle: ‘The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.’

    Within a country this is relatively straightforward – reductions in tax and increases in liberty are supported, increases in tax and reductions in liberty are opposed.

    But things can get complicated when it involves matters outside the country. How is libertarianism affected by national borders? Can it apply to relationships between sovereign states?

    To what extent should Australian libertarians seek to oppose coercion in other countries?

    In his 1801 inaugural address, US President Thomas Jefferson declared that the US should consider its external military alliances to be temporary arrangements of convenience to be abandoned or reversed according to the national interest. Citing the Farewell Address of George Washington as his inspiration, Jefferson described the doctrine as “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”

    Thomas Jefferson. 2nd President of the United States. Author of the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances.

    Known as the Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances, this thinking dominated US foreign policy right up to the Second World War. And although America now has longstanding alliances with many countries, including Australia, the doctrine remains influential in some political circles.

    In particular, many libertarians support it. In their view, a country should not invest blood and treasure in squabbles beyond the country’s borders unless there is a clear threat to the country and its ability to engage in trade and commerce. It should certainly not maintain military capabilities in excess of what is needed to defend the country.

    This is rationalised in terms of libertarian values. History has repeatedly shown that a standing army is a threat to liberty. Moreover, maintaining a military force capable of more than simply defending the country is expensive, necessitating higher taxes than if the Washington Doctrine applied.

    They point to wars such as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, where it is difficult to show any enduring benefits from military involvement by America or Australia. They also criticise current support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.

    Ukraine’s ambassador to Australia, Vasyl Myroshnychenko, inspects an Australian Bushmaster armoured vehicle

    There is a problem with this thinking though: nationalism and national sovereignty are actually collectivist concepts. They are not libertarian and, Jefferson’s other qualities notwithstanding, neither is the Washington doctrine.

    What that means is there is no libertarian justification for doing nothing about coercion merely because it is occurring in another country.

    Coercion should always be our concern, wherever it occurs.

    That does not necessarily mean rushing military aid to those subject to coercion in other countries. There are many reasons why that might not be possible, practical or advisable. But it is perfectly legitimate for libertarians to consider whether there is anything they can do, militarily or otherwise.

    Some interventions have made a major difference. But for America’s entry into the Second World War, for example, Germany and Japan would have imposed their dreadful dictatorships on most of the world. But for America’s intervention in Korea, the people in the south would now be suffering the same miserable fate as those in the north. And but for Australia’s intervention in East Timor, the country would be suffering under Indonesia’s heavy-handed military rule, now obvious in West Papua.

    Australian Peacekeeping Handover of East Timor

    There are also some current examples to consider. One of the consequences of the climate change panic, for example, is that around 40,000 children in the Democratic Republic of Congo work in appallingly inhumane, slave-like conditions in cobalt mines. The cobalt is used in lithium-ion batteries required by electric vehicles.

    In China, the government has imprisoned more than a million Uyghurs since 2017 and subjected those not detained to intense surveillance, religious restrictions, forced labour, and forced sterilisations. Forced labour is used to produce solar products.

    It is estimated that China has 98 percent of the world’s manufacturing capacity for photovoltaic ingots; 97 percent for photovoltaic wafers; 81 percent for solar cells; and 77 percent for solar modules. Many of the largest global producers of photovoltaic ingots and wafers, solar cells, and solar modules directly source polysilicon from entities believed to use forced labour in its production.

    Even a boycott of products associated with such coercion would be more consistent with libertarian values than doing nothing based on the “no entangling alliances” idea.  

    JS Mill was also an advocate of utilitarianism in addition to classical liberalism. This philosophy, generally attributed to Jeremy Bentham, is often summarised as seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.  For libertarians, it should mean the greatest liberty for the greatest number.

    Retaining The Bargaining Chip of Indemnities For Vaccine Companies

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    4

    Should we legislate to stop a government offering indemnities to vaccine manufacturers?

    This was a matter which came before the Senate last week in a private members bill.

    Some of the reasons given for the Bill were:

    • “Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decision and actions. People should always be put before profits”;
    • “Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor”; and
    • “The pharmaceutical industry has a taste for your money.”

    Vivid language for the impressionable mind!

    The most amicable and well-meaning of senators championed the cause with a rousing speech. A personal friend of mine adroitly negotiated it behind the scenes. It was a case study in politicking, and even attracted the support of one Libertarian state division.

    Then with the support of all but Labor, it went to committee for investigation and so will become news again soon. Yes, the centre-right crossbench attracted the Greens and even Senator Thorpe for a moment.

    What is not to love?

    Against such a juggernaut of consensus, this simple libertarian fig farmer has his misgivings. Have sympathy for me. It’s in my DNA to search for a principle.

    We libertarians are fond of paraphrasing John Stuart Mill’s 1859 Harm Principle with phrases like “live and let live, as long as you don’t harm others.”

    We are not so persistent in reminding our parliamentary friends that the Harm Principle requires that we ‘weigh such harms.’

    The great horror of the last 3 years was that our leaders did not do this. Ignore psychological damage to infant school children plastered with a mask. Ignore the cheap, unhealthy food on the dinner table of a family with dual incomes lost to mandates. Ignore the evaporated life savings of ‘non-essential’ small business owners. Ignore the suicides and mental health flair-ups caused by lockdowns. Ignore the business collapses.

    It was one flu-like covid-19 harm, all other harms be damned!

    One must weigh the harms.

    The problem with the Bill is that it applies a blanket ban and fails to weigh harms.

    Just say the next virus is more potent. Let’s say it’s Ebola or something with a 50% mortality rate!

    In the end, we need politicians who apply John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in full. Live and let live as long as you don’t harm others. When there are competing harms, weigh them and choose the least harmful option.

    I want our government to have the same commercial tool as any private sector party. Indemnification, or the transfer of risk, is used by outdoor adventure operators, mining equipment hire companies, and many others. Why ban the government?

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be able to transact like the private sector.

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be ready to act in the case of genuine pandemic threat. As established, I want the government to potentially offer indemnity to vaccine providers in the case of emergency.

    And as a libertarian, I want politicians who’ll use skilled negotiators so offering indemnity won’t be necessary.

    Further …

    As a libertarian, I’m unimpressed by populist attacks on free enterprise, especially pharmaceutical companies which keep us alive. As a libertarian, I’d be more curious to know why anyone believes a vaccine company should absorb near sovereign-level risk for a government intent on releasing vaccines before they pass the government’s own safety standards. As a libertarian, my focus is on that government maladministration, not the vaccine company.

    As a libertarian, I’d prefer my government weren’t both umpire, with its TGA vaccine approval processes, and player, being the acquirer and dispenser of vaccines. I’d prefer to eliminate this conflict of interest.

    As a libertarian, I’d like to rollback government from healthcare delivery, replace tired old public hospitals with private hospitals, and to protect charities which run hospitals.

    And as a libertarian, I’d prefer our allies in parliament did not run adrift philosophically into the dangerous and choppy waters of the anti-capitalist. I am left in little wonder why the Greens and Senator Thorpe kept the Bill alive.

    I believe the correct approach for a libertarian here is to vote against the Bill. In our current system, the Government needs to make it easy for vaccine production to occur in the event of a genuine calamity.

    Our government already has one hand tied behind its back running a socialised system. Let’s not tie the other one by banning the free-enterprise bargaining chip of indemnities.

    Sacred Geese and Rousing Speeches

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    Who would have thought that quacking geese could help save the Roman Republic from a Gallic horde in 390 BC?

    It prompts the question: could a stirring speech on liberty help save Australia from its government in 2023 AD?

    The Roman Republic was born when a warrior gathered his family from the ashes of Troy and founded a city destined to become one of the greatest civilisations in history. But its emergence was not without repeated struggles.

    Grappling with rapid growth and accumulated power, the Republic was in danger of being crushed by Gallic invaders. Rome had conquered most of her neighbouring Italian lands, but chronic infighting among the Senate and Tribunes distracted it from the rising threat outside the empire.

    The ancient historian, Livy, in The Early History of Rome, wrote of a warning which was ignored because it came from a plebeian of no consequence.

    “The Gauls are coming!”

    And they were. Gallic armies decimated vast swathes of Roman territory.

    In a final siege to sack Rome, Gallic troops climbed the Citadel wall, which was minimally defended as an exodus to neighbouring provinces had occurred. The people slept. Not even the dogs were alerted; it took the screeching of sacred geese to wake the people from their slumber and quickly act to repel the enemy.

    Australia in 2023 is facing its own enemy at the gate. It goes by the name of Government.

    While we don’t suffer from screeching geese in our parliaments – albeit some may like to draw a comparison – our representatives are in a prime position to sound the alarm.

    The government’s surveillance tentacles are reaching so far into our lives that we soon may not be able to breathe without its consent. Citizens are facing censorship of their thoughts, speech, and actions with the impending ACMA Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, a direct threat to our democracy.

    The Censorship Industrial Complex – A Threat to Democracy

    In the Parliament of New South Wales, on 28 June 2023, one newly elected MP laid down the stakes for liberty, delivering a rousing endorsement of the natural rights and abilities of the people, and a scathing assessment of government interference. 

    In his maiden speech, John Ruddick articulated the essence of free market capitalism:

    “We believe in the inherent morality of capitalism simply because, that is what people will spontaneously do when left alone. The worst atrocities of history were not the result of drought, flood, pestilence, or plague but of big government throwing its weight around like an elephant stomping on ants.”

    One would think such a passionate defence of liberty would be welcomed in a democratic nation.

    Alas, YouTube swiftly took it down.

    Was it the mention of “anarcho-capitalism” that offended the senses of the censorship tzars? Perhaps too radical an idea for our modern and progressive world to embrace. Sadly, this term is misunderstood. Where it is demonised as being violent in meaning and action, it is really the opposite.

    As Mr Ruddick said:

    “Anarcho-capitalism has a favourable view of human nature and an unlimited belief in our potential. I am increasingly attracted to the view that we will tap humanity’s highest potential via a government-free voluntary-based society.”

    Great speeches won’t save a nation from ruin, but they can affect how people begin to consider the world around them.

    Livy tells us that “Destiny had decreed that the Gaul’s were still to feel the true meaning of Roman valour.”

    Let our citizens record that the enemy of liberty is still to feel the true meaning of Australian spirit and enterprise.

    Sacred geese did not prevent Rome from being invaded by the Gauls, but their screeching put Romans on notice.

    Perhaps Mr Ruddick’s speech will serve as a warning for Australians in the face of monumental government overreach, reminding them of the value of our inalienable individual rights and freedoms, and how voluntary associations and agreements are by far the preferred mode of human interaction.

    Bureaucracy and The Australian Ethos

    By
    Lionel Orellana
    -
    3

    “Perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanise them”. 

    Hannah Arendt.

    The Royal Commission report into the Robodebt scandal has shone a spotlight on the leviathan that is now the Australian government. Not surprisingly, the Albanese government has distanced itself from the findings, portraying the ill-conceived scheme as a failure of their political opponents. Most of the media frame it as a failure of the Coalition government.

    In neither case is the integrity and generosity of government as an institution ever questioned, nor its proper role in society. Bill Shorten made this clear when he said: “There is an ethos in Australia that the Government always has its people’s best interests at heart and, in legal matters, is a model litigant.”[1] From his perspective the Coalition betrayed this ethos.

    It is a belief in which the Australian government represents the pinnacle of virtue. Not mere mortals pursuing their own self-interests, but a congregation of the anointed ones.

    This ethos of government as inherently good is pervasive and has allowed it to become impervious to failure.

    Yet we don’t have to look back too far to find a pattern of systemic government blunders, with substantial human and financial costs. Let us remember just a few within recent memory:

    • Green Loans Program (2009-2010). Thousands of assessors who invested their time and money were left with unfulfilled work promises.
    • Home Insulation Program (2009-2019). The death of 4 young installers sparked a Royal Commission which concluded it was a “serious failure of public administration”.
    • Building the Education Revolution (2009-2011). A $16.2 billion ‘stimulus package’ resulting in hugely inflated construction costs and waste.
    • Vocational Education and Training FEE-HELP Loans (2012-2016). Hundreds of vulnerable Australians were left with large debts for courses they never completed or started.
    • Jobactive Employment Services (2015-2022). Delivered high profits for job agencies and a bureaucratic nightmare for job seekers.

    Much can also be said about the NBN rollout, the NDIS, Snowy 2.0 and the ongoing PwC tax leaks scandal. Time after time a series of scathing, damning, blistering reports, inquiries, audits, and Royal Commissions have analysed the reasons for each successive failure, the lessons learned, and the specific details that need to be corrected to ensure the good intentions of central planners are not botched by implementation mistakes.

    In the wake of the Robodebt report there are calls for a change in the culture of the Australian Public Service: a renewed Code of Conduct and Values with an emphasis on stewardship and a primary focus on the people the APS is meant to serve.

    Kathryn Campbell. The senior bureaucrat who implemented Robodebt, an algorithmic system which issued illegal social security debt notices.

    Missing from the report and the discussion is the one recommendation that would ensure that Services Australia cannot continue to harm vulnerable Australians (especially in the age of AI): dismantle it.

    Human tragedies, large and small, have been enabled by bloated centralised bureaucracies throughout history. The more concentrated the power structure, the bigger the tragedy. Hannah Arendt, reporting in 1961 on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a major Holocaust perpetrator, observed: “the court naturally conceded that such a crime could be committed only by a giant bureaucracy using the resources of government.”

    In the context of a more dispersed power structure, a giant Australian bureaucracy is still capable of causing severe harm as we have seen with Robodebt and numerous other cases. The response should be to reduce the source of this harm to its minimum expression, not to defend it or reform it.

    The fundamental mistake is to endow government with high moral values, higher than those of private citizens. A fair and just society is not built by abdicating social responsibilities and delegating them to an external agent, one with coercive powers and a perverse incentive structure.

    Governments are not benign. In reality, “the individual bureaucrat is not attempting to maximize the public interest very vigorously but is attempting to maximize his or her own utility just as vigorously as you and I.”[2]

    Acknowledging the primacy of self-interest is not incompatible with a natural tendency to help others and engage in charitable activities or mutual aid.

    Australia has a proud history of friendly societies that provided vital financial and social support to many communities before they were crowded out by government welfare[3].

    At the beginning of the twentieth century nearly half Australia’s population was connected to a friendly society[4].  How much good could civil society do today with a fraction of the resources removed by a confused bureaucracy mostly concerned with finding its own soul?

    Despite being pushed aside and distorted by the expansion of government, Australia’s strong volunteer tradition never disappeared. We see it all around us, in the selfless actions of millions of people, each with their own unique talents, experiences, and circumstances.

    We take care of our own.

    That is an Australian ethos worth upholding.

    [1] https://ministers.dss.gov.au/editorial/9661

    [2] Tullock, Gordon; Seldon, Authur; Brady, Gordon L. Government Failure: A Primer in Public Choice.

    [3] https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-s-friendly-history

    [4] The Seven Waves of Volunteering in Australia: a brief history. Melanie Oppenheimer and Sue Regan.

    The New Gulag

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0
    Neil Oliver

    In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.

    Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.

    No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.

    Divide and conquer

    As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.

    What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.

    In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:

    “Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.

    Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.

    Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.“

    For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.

    In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.

    Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.

    Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.”  So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.

    While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.

    Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.

    The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.

    Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.

    Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.

    In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.  

    So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.

    Thank you for your support.

    123Page 1 of 3
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv