Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Philosophy

    Home Philosophy Page 2

    There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    1
    Milton Friedman

    Although commonly attributed to Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, the expression “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” long predated him.

    In fact, it described the practice of saloons (bars) offering a “free” lunch to patrons who purchased at least one drink.  The luncheon was generally high in salt (cheese, salted crackers, nuts), enticing patrons to purchase generous volumes of high-priced beer.  If you weren’t paying attention, and fell for the trap, you wound up paying much more for the “free lunch”.  The exploitation of a cognitive bias leads to over consumption (eg cheap and poor quality food) and over payment (eg through purchase of excess beer). 

    Which brings us to Australia – the land of the free and home of the expensive.  Not free as in freedom, but free as in government delivered services including healthcare and education that are perceived to be free.  And as with the salty food, there is over consumption and excessive cost.  Like the free lunch, Australians do not get free healthcare or education.  Every single one of us pays; just in a different way.

    Healthcare is funded through the Medicare levy and general taxes at the State and Commonwealth level, including income tax and GST.  So, whether you are a billionaire or on welfare, you are paying taxes that fund healthcare. And because healthcare is presented as “free”, there is inevitable overconsumption and waste.

    Prof. Milton Friedman

    Referencing Milton Friedman again, he observed that there are essentially four ways to spend money:

    • You can spend your own money on yourself.
    • You can spend your own money on someone else.
    • You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself.
    • You can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.

    When you spend your own money on yourself, you are very careful because you are looking for value. You won’t be as careful when you spend your own money on someone else, but you will look for value.

    When you spend somebody else’s money on yourself, you are more interested in making your life comfortable than achieving value, but you will at least expect to gain a benefit.

    Healthcare falls into the fourth category, of spending other people’s money on somebody else. There is no incentive to pursue value at all.

    While we pretend healthcare is free, in reality it is bureaucrats in offices spending other people’s money on others. That includes finding new ways to expand their domain. 

    Consider the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.  According to its 2021-22 annual report, at 30 June 2022

    • It employed 5,154 persons – up from 4,450 the year prior,
    • These staff cost $697 million – up from $559 million the year prior, and
    • Its operating expenses were $1.3 billion – up from $1.1 billion the year prior.

    All this and yet the department did not operate a single hospital or aged care facility.

    According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (a government body), in 2020-21, total health spending in Australia was over $220 billion of which over 70% was government (Commonwealth, State, and Territory).  That does not sound very free. 

    A government commissioned review also found that perhaps 10% of the Medicare program was subject to waste and fraud. Why?  Perhaps because governments are spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.

    This is not to suggest that there would be no government health expenditure if this charade of free healthcare was ended.  It might however lead to a much more responsive and cost-efficient system.  Consider how much lower taxes could be, or how much higher pensions might be, but for the inefficiency and waste of Australia’s “free” healthcare system.

    We are told by Professor Duncan Maskell, the Vice-Chancellor (CEO) of the University of Melbourne,  that “one of the most important radical changes that could be made to facilitate this would be once more to make education free to the Australian domestic student”.  Australia already has an over-production problem of university graduates, and Maskell’s proposal would make it even worse.  Why?  Because universities would be spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.

    To make university education “free to the Australian domestic student” would require someone else to pay for it, including those who do not and will never attend university.  It wouldn’t be free; it would just be paid for by someone else.

    If Professor Maskell, who is reported to be on an annual salary package of $1.5 million, really wants to make university cheaper and/or free for students, he should first look in his back yard.  According to the Melbourne University annual report, in 2022 it had approximately 53,000 students and employee related expenses of $1.6 billion. That’s approximately $31,000 per student.  It would certainly make the cost of education much lower if Professor Maskell and all his staff worked for free.

    INFOGRAPHIC: The Coercion Wheels

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    fgd

    When consuming the day’s news, I bet you first respond by gut feel.

    Everyone does. Human are instinctive beings. Shoot first, ask questions later.

    The problem with that was illustrated by the Great Pandemic Overreach of 2020-2022. Fear was weaponised and the world community fell for it.

    Some people try to think. As a subscriber of Liberty Itch, you are most likely a disciplined, libertarian thinker. We fight against our natural urges to ‘let rip’ in our political response. We are principled. This sets us apart.

    For libertarians to believe in a life free from coercion; to live and let live, and to respond with our minds rather than a gut-based thought-bubble, we need a tool that:

    • identifies all the sources of  power operating in our society;
    • clarifies the methods they use to erode our liberties;
    • shows how our freedoms can be protected when a power centre is neutralised by another centre; and
    • exposes how our liberties are lost when the power centres collude or are weakened.

    I have that tool. It’s an infographic. I call it The Coercion Wheels.

    Wheel 1 identifies the culprits: the power centres which will coerce you if given half a chance. There are ten culprits operating under two categories.

    The first category is government, under which there are five sub-categories:

    1. International;
    2. Legislature;
    3. Executive;
    4. Judiciary; and
    5. Forces.

    The second category is non-government, also with five sub-categories:

    1. Business;
    2. Media;
    3. Community;
    4. Crime; and
    5. Individuals.

    You will see that the ten sub-categories are further divided into forty coercion culprits. These are the people or groups of people who seek to impose their will on our life and limit our freedoms. They range from the United Nations to our siblings.

    To examine the detail, I recommend you print the infographic. It is written from an Australian perspective but subscribers from other countries can substitute their local equivalent for what is represented.

    Forty power centres in a liberal democracy like Australia! Forty coercion culprits, each pressuring you with differing amounts of control over your life. Any one or combination of them can curtail your freedoms.

    Wheel 2 shows the same sub-categories but with the coercion method used against you and your family. There are a surprising number of them, from Appropriation Increases to Denial of Child Custody, from Wire Taps to Asset Seizure, from Ostracism to Trolling. I’ve listed 103 methods used to impinge upon our rights and freedoms.

    Liberal democracies like Australia work best when each power centre is subject to checks and balances by others. This neutralising effect leaves you and me less likely to be subject to coercion.

    Here are examples of the checks and balances working:

    • Various churches were plagued by reports of child sexual abuse but could not reform themselves. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the investigations and final report resulted in criminal proceedings and conviction of priests, and led to structural changes in the Church. On Wheel 1, this is shown as Old Media (24), Federal Ministers (6) and State Judges (14) checking the abuse of power by the Church & Religious Organisations (26).
    • When former CEO of James Hardie Limited was banned from acting as a director for 15 years for failing to provide a duty of care with respect to asbestos diseases, this is State Judges (14) holding Large Corporations (22) accountable on Wheel 1. Another check and balance success.
    • When Political Parties (28) vie for election to the legislature as Federal MHRs and Senators (3) or State MLAs and MLCs (4), each party acts as a check on the others and helps ensure there is a balance of opinion. There are no one party states in a liberal democracy.

    Sometimes though, a segment of society may be weak or unwilling to act as a check and balance. At times, a number of power centres collude. This was evident during the Great Pandemic Overreach of 2020-2022:

    • When State Agency Officers (11) and State Police (18) forced the Church and Religious Organisation (26) to shut. Australian churches simply rolled over, such was the force against them. No check or balance, with freedom to worship crushed;
    • When Old Media (24) acted as propagandist for Federal MHRs and Senators (3), State MLAs and MLCs (4), Federal Bureaucrats (8), Federal Agency Officers (9), State Bureaucrats (10), State Agency Officers (11) and State Police (18), and with no power centres in support of our rights, we lost the right to assemble, protest and earn a living. Checks and balances failed.   

    These are just some examples.

    If liberal democracy feels like it’s on the slide, it is because there is a blurring of interests and collusion between these traditionally separate power centres.

    But there is hope.

    What is Liberty Itch if not New Media (25) holding the other 39 power centres to account in a freedom-oriented, intelligent way?

    Next time you consume the news, rather than rely on gut feel, use The Coercion Wheels to think and analyse. Which power centre is doing the coercing? On whom? How are they doing this? Which power centre needs to balance the coercion so you and your family are not vulnerable?

    If libertarians are about freedom from coercion, The Coercion Wheels are a great tool for identifying the power centres which can act against us, the tactics they use, and why we must have them focus on each other and not us.

    Libertarians And Conservatives: Similar But Different

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0
    g

    In Australia, conservatives and libertarians tend to get along.  Neither has sympathy for the woke, neither declares their pronouns, chooses their gender, or seeks to cancel those with whom they disagree. They both believe in things such as equality before the law, the presumption of innocence, parental responsibility, religious freedom and democracy. Indeed, some conservatives tend to think that libertarianism is merely conservatism under another name. 

    That is not the case though; libertarianism and conservatism originate from quite different places. It is worth understanding those places so that when they do diverge, it is not unexpected. It also helps those who are unsure of their own position.

    Libertarianism is a political philosophy based on individual freedom. Before the Americans corrupted the word it was once synonymous with liberalism, but now it’s also known as classical liberalism. Some people prefer to call themselves classical liberals to avoid being mistaken for members of the US Libertarian Party, but there is no difference. 

    John Locke. Early Enlightenment philosopher who advocated for the right to “Life, Liberty and Estate”

    The origins of libertarianism can be traced to the Enlightenment philosophers, particularly John Locke, and to John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, which says that people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else.

    Conservatism is not a political philosophy but a preference for the status quo. Edmund Burke described it as an “approach to human affairs which mistrusts both a priori reasoning and revolution, preferring to put its trust in experience and in the gradual improvement of tried and tested arrangements.”

    That it is not a philosophy can be seen from the fact that in the former Soviet Union, those who lamented the fall of communism (the status quo at the time) were also conservatives. Obviously, in that case they had nothing in common with libertarians.

    John Stuart Mill. Philosopher who conceived The Harm Principle

    Libertarians tend to have a view of what an ideal society should be: one in which the government is kept small and limited to a narrow range of functions, such as national defence, criminal justice and the protection of private property, with everything else subject to free markets. Conservatives might acknowledge some change is justified at the margins, but they generally regard current institutions as worth preserving. Libertarians advocate low taxes; conservatives oppose increased taxes. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, is a conservative sentiment.

    “Taxation Is Theft”, a libertarian idea. “No Tax Increases”, a conservative idea.

    Where coercion is involved, the two can part company. This was illustrated by the debate over same sex marriage. Libertarians supported the change because it removed state intrusion from the choice of a spouse. Conservatives resisted the change on the grounds that marriage is a longstanding and revered institution.

    It is similar with illicit drugs. Conservatives tend to disapprove of them and are happy they are prohibited. Libertarians argue that, although they might disapprove of them, it is a matter of personal choice unless others are being harmed (and concede that can occur in some circumstances).

    Libertarianism and conservatism originate from quite different places.

    Conservatives and libertarians generally agree that personal choice can be important. Libertarians support it in principle (the nanny state is anathema to them) while conservatives support it because it is the status quo.  But this disguises a significant difference: libertarians believe personal choice is never the government’s business unless others are harmed, except for those unable to take responsibility for their choices (eg children). Conservatives believe some people make poor choices and may need saving from themselves, or that certain choices lead to additional cost to our socialised medical system (which is the status quo). This can lead to different positions on issues like drinking, smoking, gambling, sugar and bicycle helmets.

    Things get interesting with firearms. Obviously, these have the potential to harm others if misused, but that is true of other things. For libertarians, the problem is that gun control invariably only applies to civilians, not the police or military. Laws are ultimately enforced by people with guns. As the saying goes, when government fears the people there is liberty, but when the people fear the government there is tyranny.

    Conservatives tend to have a more benign view of government and are reluctant to concede that it might ever be necessary to fight against or overthrow it by means other than elections.

    Of course, there are libertarians who take a conservative approach on some issues as well as conservatives who have libertarian tendencies. Upholding principles can be challenging. It is easy to rationalise spending other people’s money on something close to your heart.  

    Conservatives tend to have a more benign view of government.

    It is nonetheless a good idea for both libertarians and conservatives to periodically consider the reason for their views. Are they based on principles, or do they reflect a preference for the status quo? Are they consistent or hypocritical?

    Libertarianism and conservatism are different, though they have much in common. But libertarians and conservatives also need each other, so understanding each other is important.

    Why I Oppose The Voice

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0
    hf

    Whether to oppose or support the Voice referendum is an easy decision for me. The proposal is fundamentally racist, and I’m a libertarian. Racism is a collective concept and simply incompatible with libertarianism.

    Libertarians see people as individuals, not as members of a group.

    The proposal is for people of the Aboriginal race to elect members of the Voice, which will have the right to give advice to the government and executive. Non-Aborigines will not have a vote for the Voice, and will have no comparable means of giving advice. Australians will thus be divided into two groups – Aborigines and non-Aborigines, with Aborigines having rights that non-Aborigines do not have. Moreover, by being in the Constitution, the Voice will have a status not held by any other advisory body.  

    Dividing people into groups, whether it is race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference, is collectivism.  It might be appropriate on occasions for statistical purposes, but it is not acceptable as a basis for government policy.  The only legitimate approach, to libertarians like me, is to treat people as individuals.

    That does not mean we lack concern for the welfare of Aborigines. Like Australians generally, we are distressed at the pathetic improvements revealed by the Closing the Gap surveys. Indeed, the third world conditions of Aborigines in remote regions is a national disgrace that I railed about regularly when in the Senate.

    And yet, there are plenty of Aborigines who participate in Australian society on the same terms as other Australians. They have jobs, are not poor, their children attend school, and they are not involved in substance abuse. Moreover, there are plenty of non-Aborigines who do not have jobs, are poor, abuse drugs, and neglect their children.

    Treating all Aborigines differently because some are poor and disadvantaged makes no more sense than treating non-Aborigines differently because some of them are poor and disadvantaged. The problem is that these issues exist, not the race of those who suffer them.

    Libertarians see people as individuals, not as members of a group.

    We share Martin Luther King’s dream, in which he hoped that one day his four little children would be judged on the basis of their character, not the colour of their skin.

    Racism is a collective concept and simply incompatible with libertarianism.

    Collectivism, which includes defining people by their race, is rejected. If someone is poor and disadvantaged, the appropriate response is to overcome the disadvantage that keeps them poor. This is true irrespective of the race of those concerned, or indeed any other collective characteristics with which they might be defined.

    Voting no to the voice referendum can be justified on several grounds, including the fact that it will seriously compromise the role of parliament once the High Court gets its hands on it. But for libertarians, the simple fact that it is based on racism is sufficient.

    Free Will, Libertarians and Easter

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Sam Harris does not believe ‘free will’ exists.

    He believes we are creatures playing out compulsive, repetitious behavioural cycles like any other animal and, like them, we just don’t realise it.

    Except for him.

    He knows what none of us can see, apparently.

    He has elevated himself above the primal, it is suggested we acccept.

    Forgive my skepticism.

    On the contrary, I see ‘free will’ exercised daily, at life’s inflection points and in our beliefs.

    We are free agents, individuals making an individual’s decision, not some kind of habitual, near-clone automatons.

    ‘Free Will’: individuals’ ability to decide independently of evolutionary reflex

    Daily ‘Free Will’

    We exercise ‘free will’ daily in the decisions we make: walk across the road now or when the cars come, read a chapter of a book now or later or not at all, compliment a person or not. This is obvious.

    ‘Free Will’ At Life’s Inflection Points

    We exercise ‘free will’ at great inflection points in our lives when long-lasting, significant decisions are made: a marriage, a move overseas, a decision to start volunteering for a charity for the next ten years, the ascent of a rugged mountain.

    When a child is born, is it preordained that this individual would go on to a life of crime or become a Rhodes Scholar? No. A million choices are made along life’s path to reach that point.

    Daily and at life’s inflection points, ‘free will’ is exercised.

    So too with our belief systems.

    ‘Free Will’ In Our Beliefs

    The more counter-intuitive our belief systems, the more likely we are to be free agents and individuals making an individual’s decision.

    It’s easy to follow the herd. Not much ‘free will’ in that.

    The more unusual or challenging the ideas we embrace, the less likely we are some kind of habitual, near-clone automaton and the more evidence there is that we are NOT creatures playing out compulsive, repetitious behavioural cycles like any other animal.

    The harder to understand or more complicated our beliefs, the less likely our adherence to them is an evolutionary reflex. Unusual or radical ideas have to be formed, absorbed and finally proactively accepted. This all takes prodigious helpings of ‘free will’.

    Let me give two examples of counter-intuitive belief systems which prove ‘free will’ is in play.

    First, in the political realm, classical liberal and libertarian principles.

    Adam Smith. Classical Liberal.

    In a world of predictable, herd-following progressive versus conservative debates, our views are counter-intuitive and don’t fit their narrative. Our ideas take discipline to apply. We have to constantly think to hold true to them. We are exercising ‘free will’ just to maintain philosophical consistency. In a Left-Right world, we are thinking outside the box and reshaping the political landscape as an Authoritarian-Libertarian world.

    Does this sound like the product of an automaton in a matrix, or thinking individuals weighing a fresh and exciting political philosophy?

    It smacks of individual thinking and ‘free will’ to me.

    Second, in the religious world, Christian faith.

    Do you want an example of a mind-bender of a belief, a counter-intuitive thought which takes all of our ‘free will’ – all of us – to absorb and embrace?

    OK. I’ll give you one, timely since today is Good Friday:

    “For God so loved the world that he gave us his only Son,
    that whoever shall believe in him, shall not perish but have eternal life.”

    Tell me that doesn’t take a large dose of ‘free will’ to accept! Let’s call this idea what it is: über radical! There’s nothing automatic or mundane about this concept. To truly accept the idea, there can be no coercion, only free-thinking and a big leap of faith, individuals making an individual’s decision on a concept well outside the norm.

    As I meet more and more classical liberals and libertarians, I become less and less surprised that so many happen to be Christians in their private lives. Of course, you don’t have to be a Christian to be libertarian. The former is a personal moral code, the latter a political one. But, wow, there are a lot of Christian libertarians. Start with the most famous: Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul. Christian Libertarian.

    None of us should be shocked by this.

    Libertarian and Christian ideas are for the free-thinker. Both are challenging to apply. Both respect the dignity of the individual. Both call for personal responsibility. Both respect those who’s lives we touch. Both require the exercise of ‘free will’ and both will be judged on the decisions made with the ‘free will’.

    This is a very different person from a conservative who trades on Christianity with words like “I am a cultural Christian. I believe in Judeo-Christian values” but doesn’t even believe let alone go to church on Easter, the singular most important day on the Christian calendar.

    No, in my experience, libertarian Christians not only have a parish church and attend on Easter Day, but are actually in the leadership groups of their local church. No virtue signalling over it. Just belief and quiet action. They work hard in their local communities and volunteer because, as one of many reasons, the act of charity is authentic not the act of being charitable with other people’s money.

    The inherent tension built into the idea that you should live freely as long as you don’t harm another, John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, mirrors the ‘free will’ Biblical narrative from the consequences of free choice in Eden to the consequences of choosing to submit in Gethsemane.

    These are not ideas for mere creatures playing out compulsive, repetitious behavioural cycles like any other animal.

    Rather, these are daring, challenging ideas for the enlightened free-thinker.

    Sam Harris is wrong. ‘Free will’ is everywhere and Easter service awaits you this Sunday.

    How will you use your ‘free will’?

    Remembering Bert Kelly

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0
    fd

    In my last piece, Remembering Frederick Douglass, I discussed the evils and folly of centralised wage-fixing which, amongst other things, prevented people – young people in particular – from getting a start in the workforce; a foot on that first rung of the employment ladder.

    Today, we look at centralized wage-fixing’s partner-in-crime – tariff protection. The other side of the micro-economic coin, if you like.

    It was Bert Kelly (1912–1997) who once said, ‘The really bad ideas never go away’.

    Bert Kelly. Member for Wakefield (Lib, SA). Leading advocate for free markets.

    Along with centralised wage-fixing, protectionism is another of those really bad ideas.

    The Australian settlement of 1900 was based on five key principles – two were economic, two were social and one was the imperial benevolence of the mother country.

    The two social principles were the White Australia Policy and State Paternalism.

    The two economic principles were regulated labour markets and tariff protection. These two went hand in hand. As centralised wage-fixing delivered arbitrary pay increases, thus increasing the cost of production, the price of the goods rose commensurately. As a result, imported goods became more competitive. In response, an import tax – a tariff – was placed on these imported goods to ‘protect’ Australian jobs from competition.

    By the late 19th century, NSW had prospered under its free trade regime and had overtaken protectionist Victoria, becoming the continent’s leading colony. Following the collapse of the gold-rush, and to sustain its economy, Victoria borrowed heavily in the British capital markets but soon found itself impoverished and losing population – the consequences of 30 years of protectionism. NSW political leaders such as George Reid speculated that Victoria was desperate for federation so that its economic problems could be shared with the other colonies!

    By the early 1920s, the newly-formed Country Party under Earle Page – influenced by the rural export industries of wool, meat and wheat – was officially opposed to protection, yet supported the Scullin Government’s belief that tariffs on imports would help restore employment during the Great Depression (1929–1932) by handing out tariffs virtually on demand. It didn’t work.

    In 1930, Australian historian Keith Hancock had published his book Australia which contains this memorable reference to protectionism in Australia:

    ‘Protection in Australia is more than a policy: it is a faith and a dogma. Its critics, during the second decade of the twentieth century, dwindled into a despised and detected sect suspected of nursing an anti-national heresy. Protection is interwoven with almost every strand of Australia’s democratic nationalism. It professes to be a policy of plenty, but it is a policy of power.’

    Bert Kelly arrived in Federal Parliament in 1958 as the Member for the South Australian seat of Wakefield and from then until he left the Parliament in 1977 fought a long and often bitter campaign against protectionism – first against a very powerful Deputy Prime Minister and Country Party Leader in John ‘Black Jack’ McEwen, and then against the strongly-defended populism of ‘protecting Australian jobs’.

    Bert Kelly was opposed to protectionism because, like centralised wage-fixing, it was not only economically foolish, it was also morally wrong. It was wrong, he said, because it created a situation in which governments granted favours to some, who became greatly enriched, at the expense of others, who were at best impoverished and at worst, ruined.

    On a parliamentary delegation to India, Bert visited a factory making bed sheets which wanted to sell in Australia but was unable to do so due to the high tariff (import tax) placed on imported bed linen. It was the same at an Indian shirt factory.

    For example, a shirt made in Australia cost $50 to buy. An imported shirt $20. By imposing a $30 tariff on the imported shirt, consumers were told they had to pay $50 for a shirt to ‘protect Australian jobs’. If there were no tariff, however, and consumers were able to buy a shirt for $20 instead of $50, that would give them Bert argued, $30 to spend on something else. And it is that something else that is the catalyst for emerging industries.

    Tariffs support declining industries, free trade supports emerging industries.

    Bert also learned that Indians were desperate to buy Australian milk powder for their children but did not have the foreign exchange – Australian or US dollars – due to the insurmountable tariff on their textile goods entering Australia.

    Thus, both India and Australia suffered. To quote Bert Kelly:

    ‘Australian dairy farmers can’t sell their skim milk powder, Australian families have to buy expensive ‘Australian-made’ sheets and shirts, Indian children don’t get milk and Indian factories can’t make textiles. A lose-lose situation if ever there was one. All this brought to you by our good and wise government’.

    At the same time, Australia was giving aid money to India.

    Bert spoke frequently in favour of Community Aid Abroad but against aid being given with no strings attached. ‘Trading with poor countries is a far better way to help them than giving them aid,” he argued.

    With the union movement’s new friends in Canberra, expect to see more on the wages/tariff front.

    FREE! The Kerry Packer Classical Liberal Masterclass

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    0

    Some thirty plus years ago, a fellow by the name of Kerry Packer appeared before a House of Representatives Inquiry into Print Media. 

    Kerry Packer. Appeared in the House of Reps Inquiry into Print Media in 1991.

    The context of the inquiry was that the owner of the main metropolitan newspapers and classifieds, Fairfax, had gone broke.  And with Fairfax having gone broke, Packer was trying to buy into the re-floated business. 

    This was a time before the Internet, when newspapers actually made money and lots if it from their classifieds business.  Fairfax’s classifieds business was referred to as the ‘rivers of gold’.

    There is a tale to tell here around Malcolm Turnbull who was previously Packer’s in-house lawyer and who, by this stage, had moved on and was representing the junk bond holders of the broke Fairfax.  But that is for another time.

    Businessman Kerry Packer with future Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

    For his masterclass in its entirety, see the video at the end of this article.

    There are some much younger looking folk in it, including one Peter Costello.  However, this is not to delve into the issues of media, but rather the diversion that took place late in the piece when Packer spoke about the risk to Australia from the constant meddling of Australian parliaments and the risk to investments into Australia.  It was a Packer masterclass and should be shown in every school and every parliamentarian induction session. 

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

    Highlight 1 – when Packer says to ALP curmudgeon John Langmore:

    “You seem to be completely unaware of the Constitution of Australia.”

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/82W6RgYwQS4?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Highlight 2 – when Packer points out that in his lifetime, tens of thousands of laws had been passed but that Australia was not a better place for all those new laws.  He also suggested that for every law passed, another law be repealed.  Packer said:

    Every time you pass a law, you take someone’s privileges away from them.

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/k9wZk_0n18k?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Highlight 3 – again when Langmore accuses Packer of minimising his tax.  To which Packer replied:

    I don’t know anyone who does not minimise their tax.
    If anyone in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read,
    because as a government, I can tell you that
    you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Dae_lPippGU?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    Which brings me to superannuation wars 2023 when Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones flagged yet more changes to superannuation taxes. 

    The proposal is couched in fairness, but the truth is that like drug addicts, the government is in desperate need of more money.

    Let’s be honest here.  There are some serious issues with the taxation treatment of superannuation.  As John Kehoe pointed out in the AFR:

    A retiree earning $100,000 a year in super fund investment returns typically pays no income tax, whereas a wage earner receiving the same amount pays $23,000 tax

    This is neither fair nor just.  But the Government’s problem, as with the same problem for the Coalition, is that they have no credibility when it comes to tax changes and tax reforms. This because they won’t do the work of demonstrating that what is currently being spent is being spent efficiently and effectively.

    Within the last six months, it was reported that some $6 billion per annum is lost to fraud in the NDIS and $8 billion per annum is lost to fraud in Medicare.  That’s $14 billion per annum, and not a word has been said or done about this.  No inquiry.  No policy changes.  No ministerial speeches.  No campaign from the opposition.  No major response from government.  Just business as usual. 

    Instead, piles of money and political capital are being expended to generate what will likely be less than $1 billion per annum of additional taxes.

    Talk about perverted priorities.

    There is much wrong and distortionary with the Australian tax system.  It is a train crash.  But until government does the fundamental and hard work of spending reform, tax reform will be seen for what it is.  Just an attempt to pump more water into a leaky bucket.

    According to the ABS, for the 12 months to June 2021, the 3 tiers of Australian government managed to generate $810 billion of revenue.  But they spent $970 billion or near half of GDP generating a combined deficit of $160 billion.

    Our governments don’t have revenue problem.  They have a spending problem.  Message to Labor, Liberal, National and Greens governments, as Kerry Packer said quite well and clearly:

    “you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!”

    Here’s the Packer masterclass in its entirety.

    https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xOLbbkC1qq0?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

    ANSWER: The Carlson-Shapiro Question

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    tonkin

    I admit it.

    There I was on 27 February 2023, making a little mischief with my article:

    VOTE NOW! Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro?

    Well, it was mischief-making in the sense that I like to sharply define the line between liberal and conservative and then, with all the goodwill in the world, provoke people to think and explore these differences.

    There is a difference, you see.

    So I posted a video clip between American commentators Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. They had opposing views of how to handle inevitable job losses caused by driverless trucks. It illustrated the difference eloquently.

    If you haven’t watched the exchange, click here.

    Then I challenged you to vote whether you agreed with Tucker Carlson or, by inference from his question, Ben Shapiro.

    The results are in:

    • 37% Tucker Carlson; and
    • 63% Ben Shapiro.

    If you agreed with Tucker Carlson, you are a conservative.

    If you agreed with Ben Shapiro, you are a liberal.

    As I repeat ad nauseum, conservatives wish to conserve. Here, Mr. Carlson would be happy to conserve current industry development rather than advance it. He’d be happy to keep truck drivers in jobs for which technology has a more efficient solution, the driverless truck.

    By inference from his question, Mr Shapiro would prefer to let the free market take its course, permit the technology and have truck drivers migrate into related freight work or even redeploy into other industries.

    There’s a big difference in approach.

    Liberals and conservatives are not the same.

    You’re an optimist if you’re a liberal (or if you must, a classical liberal or libertarian, they all mean the same thing!) You believe in people, in their ability to innovate and in their ability to adapt to change. In the case of driverless trucks, you fully embrace this new technology and you want to encourage the creators of that innovation by allowing it to be unleashed on the market. No restrictions. And you have faith truck drivers, given appropriate notice, are more than capable of finding new work. You are confident they aren’t simply going to sit and bemoan the loss of one type of occupation. Rather, you know they’ll have to find other work to feed their families, as we all do.

    You’re a pessimist if you’re a conservative. You believe, as Mr Carlson even said, that you don’t want high school educated men let loose on society without a job. He assumes that high school educated men would suddenly become helpless and even dangerous. That’s the inference.

    Blimey!

    Talk about loss of faith in our fellow citizens. It’s a nanny state attitude. What evidence is there for this? None that I can find. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence high school educated men are adaptable.

    Take 1980s Newcastle. A city bustling with blue collar men busily working the steelworks. Now look at 2020s Newcastle, a lifestyle, health and university town. What happened to these steelworkers? Was Newcastle ravaged by idle high school educated men wreaking havoc across the city? No. Some of these men were due to retire, some moved to the Wollongong works, some stayed in Newcastle moving into value-add niche industrial enterprises, some stayed in the large industrial companies but worked from home as the companies left, some started their own businesses using their skills in new ways, some simply moved into new industries altogether, some retrained, some took early retirement to enjoy life.

    Take my grandfather. He grew up and apprenticed as a wheelwright at the tale-end of the old wooden spoke and hub horse-drawn carts. Then as his career developed, wood gave way to steel spoke and hub wheels. Then steel plates came in. What a transition!

    Further, when a conservative says ‘let’s restrict technology’, what does that signal? It’s the same as saying to every inventor and innovator, every scientist and engineer, to every entrepreneur and free thinker that their fresh, new ways of solving old problems are unwelcome.

    Do we really want that?

    If we took that view, we wouldn’t have made these advances outlined in There Is Hope. Check This Out!

    Further ….

    We’d have no smartphones.

    No Internet.

    No wireless.

    No medical imaging.

    No open heart surgery.

    No computers.

    No electricity.

    No refrigeration.

    No cars.

    No flush toilets.

    No immunisation.

    No fresh, high-quality food.

    No sewerage works.

    No social mobility.

    No flowing, pure water to the bathroom sink.

    No glass.

    No books.

    No steel.

    No iron.

    No bronze.

    No wheel!

    As I say, conservatism’s tendency to oppose change can be helpful. However, if that’s all we on the Right do is oppose and conserve, we end up sliding to the Left. Opposition and conservation are insufficient to fight the Left.

    We must treat our innovators with respect and let them advance society. We must not be conservative and stand in the way.

    We must treat our fellow citizens with respect, have confidence in them that they can cope with change. We should not mollycoddle them.

    Don’t be a conservative like Mr. Carlson.

    Be a classical liberal like Mr. Shapiro in this debate.

    This is the way forward.

    RADICAL VIDEO: The Muscular, Unapologetic Case For Classical Liberalism

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    lk

    [insert video here]

    Hayek Gives Liberal Democrats Its New Name

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0
    Frederick Hayek

    Word on the street is that the Liberal Democrats are searching for a new name.

    Malcolm Turnbull and the Greens forced it upon them. It was his parting gift.

    It is now the Eleventh Commandment.

    “Thou shalt not use any English word of an older party’s name in your own.”

    So, despite being named the Liberal Democrats for 21 years, the Liberal Party government took the Liberal Democrats to court and won. The Liberal Democrats challenged the decision in the High Court and lost.

    And just like that, the Liberal Party owns a monopoly right to the word ‘liberal’ despite being one of the most illiberal governments in existence today.

    Of course, this is old news.

    The amazing development is that Friedrich Hayek himself has come back from the grave and offered a suggestion for a new name!

    Hard to believe, right?

    And yet, here he is in black and white pondering the very same question about an appropriate party name for classical liberals.

    In his famous 1960 essay Why I Am Not A Conservative in which he affirms the clear differences between socialists, conservatives and liberals, he wrote:

    “In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use ‘liberal’ in the sense in which I have used it, the term ‘libertarian’ has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavour of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favours free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.”

    Having eschewed the word ‘libertarian’, he then strikes upon an idea.

    “We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name.

    It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.

    Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, “Whig” was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.

    The name died in the country of its birth partly because for a time the principles for which it stood were no longer distinctive of a particular party, and partly because the men who bore the name did not remain true to those principles. The Whig parties of the nineteenth century, in both Britain and the United States, finally brought discredit to the name among the radicals.

    But it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the over-rationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe.

    The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig – with the stress on the ‘old.’ ”

    And there you have it.

    What do you think?

    According to Friedrich Hayek, you are a Whig.

    The long history of the Whigs is rich and worth exploring. The ‘Old Whig’ phrase was coined by Edmund Burke who best reflected its views. Famous Whigs have included or been influenced by John Locke, Adam Smith, former British Prime Minister William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, after whom the grand city of Melbourne is named, and most of the pre-revolutionary American patriots.

    You adhere to the principles of Whiggism. You are Whiggish in your philosophical leanings.

    Vote #1, the Whigs!

    123Page 2 of 3
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv