Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 5

    Pro-Natalist Policies – The Jury is Out

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    2

    “By 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.”

    Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021, Lancet.

    Fertility rates around the world are falling off a cliff. From 1950 to 2021, total fertility rate (TFR) more than halved from 4.84 to 2.23 globally. By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman. 

    Prolonged fertility rates of 1.3 children per woman reduce a country’s population by half in less than 45 years. Many European countries have already reached this point. Australia’s current fertility rate is 1.63 births per woman. 

    The world is experiencing a real baby bust. 

    Robust fertility rates are essential for economic prosperity and societal stability. They ensure a continuous influx of a younger workforce, fostering economic growth through increased productivity and innovation. Moreover, higher fertility rates stabilise social systems by providing intergenerational support for older demographics. Additionally, growing populations drive consumer demand, promoting market expansion and providing business opportunities crucial for sustained economic development. 

    Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily.

    From a libertarian standpoint, robust fertility rates underscore individual freedom, allowing people to make autonomous decisions about family size without undue interference. Furthermore, they contribute to economic self-sufficiency, reducing reliance on government welfare programs and fostering a culture of personal responsibility. Sustainable population growth also maintains market dynamics, encouraging competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship organically, without the need for artificial population control measures.

    Governments know that a population in decline is a bad thing. In a bid to increase fertility rates, numerous countries have implemented pro-natalist policies. According to the United Nations, 10% of countries had such policies in 1976, 15% in 2001 and 28% in 2015 (being their most recent data). However, assessing the results of these is quite challenging. 

    Governments often fail to reevaluate their policies, including those designed to increase birth rates. This phenomenon was described by Milton Friedman: “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” 

    Governments are spending big, but have not stopped to study the results of their pro-natalist policies. From the available evidence, it appears clear that pro-natalist policies result in small and transient effects on total fertility rates.

    The USSR pioneered the implementation of pro-natalist policies. Following the fall of the union, some countries in Central and Eastern Europe continued pro-natalist benefits in spite of severe economic conditions and budgetary pressures. 

    Two examples from 2005 – in Czechia, spending per child equalled 60.8% of GDP per capita, and 51.3% in Slovakia. These are twice the average of OECD high income countries, which was 26.8%. The birth rate increase in both countries was modest: Czechia’s birth rate in 2005 was 1.29; by 2010 it was 1.51 and by 2021 it was 1.83, still not at replacement level. Slovakia’s birthrate in 2005 was 1.25. By 2010, it was 1.34 and in 2023 it was 1.55.

    By 2021, over half of all countries and territories were below replacement level of two births per woman. 

    From 2007 to 2016, Russia offered mothers who had their second or third child 250,000 roubles (about US$12,000), approximately the average annual income. Evidence suggests that the birth rate for women aged 25-29 increased from 78.4 per 1000 women in 2006 to 99.8 in 2011. However, the annual birth rate change dropped from +2.460% in 2013 to -0.320% in 2014 and has remained negative ever since. In other words, it only had a short term effect. 

    Complex social and economic factors intersect to shape fertility patterns. These are far beyond the purview of government control. High-income countries particularly witness a steep decline in fertility rates, possibly influenced by increased educational opportunities and changing societal expectations. Later marriage, postponed childbearing and an increase in single motherhood all emerge as trends, as a country’s income levels increase. 

    We also see factors such as higher levels of education empowering women, and evolving cultural norms around marriage and career aspirations. This is particularly noticeable in the United States, which has decreased fertility rates among second-generation immigrants. 

    Economic downturns, including a lack of affordable housing, also often prompt couples to delay having children, at least temporarily. This has been seen in the United States, where fertility rates have been declining since 2008. 

    Join Mailing List

    From a libertarian perspective, declining fertility rates are of concern. However, the question is whether governments should continue to spend money on costly pro-natalist policies. For example, is spending billions on childcare and paid parental leave preferable to allowing single income families to split their income for taxation purposes? Not likely. 

    The government should concern itself with removing obstacles. By prioritising individual freedom and self-reliance, individuals would be encouraged and empowered to make their own decisions regarding their own family size, without government intrusion.

    By promoting a culture of autonomy and self-reliance, libertarian solutions would address declining fertility rates while respecting individual liberties and preserving economic vitality.

    The Rise of Citizen Journalism and Independent Media

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    0

    Shortly after 4pm on the 27th of March, the X account @churPanic commenced a live broadcast on a mobile phone from the streets of Gisborne, New Zealand. 

    Against a backdrop of community outrage at taxpayer-funded Rainbow Storytime in the local library, a pedestrian crossing had been whitewashed. Residents of this small North Island town were protesting at the repainting of it in the colours of the Rainbow flag. There was a heavy police presence manhandling the demonstrators and making arrests.

    Minutes earlier the livestream on Facebook from one of the protest groups had gone dark when police arrested the cameraman. It didn’t take long for the internet to discover the small @churPanic account on another platform: a link to his broadcast was rapidly shared and reshared, and hundreds of people tuned in. Two hours later tens of thousands had watched the footage. Shortly after midnight photojournalist Chris De Bruyne in Sydney published a subtitled remix of a clip someone else had cut from the original as a service to the deaf community. 75,000 people viewed De Bruyne’s version. It was one of many.

    Within a day hundreds of thousands – if not millions – had watched the footage in one form or another, most with no idea of  its origin. This is raw news, proliferating through the democratising process of the internet. 

    And it’s killing mainstream media.   

    4pm is too late in the day for the story to make the 6 o’clock news on TV channels. The first mainstream coverage was at 9 pm in online newspapers and late evening broadcasts. By the time the creaking legacy media fabricated a narrative fitting their editorial slant for consumption by a domestic New Zealand audience, the entire world had already seen @churPanic’s footage in one form or another and formulated their own interpretations. 

    Legacy media perceive the social media giants as the greatest threat to their business models.

    Blatant biases aside, the reason for the demise of the legacy media is their slavish devotion to antiquated businesses models that stymie innovation. In failing to evolve, audiences have abandoned them for more reliable sources elsewhere, and advertisers have shifted with them. 

    The legacy media isn’t going down without a fight though, and its death throes are interesting to observe. Far from reviewing their own approach, the legacy media have declared war on everyone else: social media corporations, independents, imagined disinformation programmes by shadowy international organisations, even their own audiences.

    The reality the legacy media refuses to accept is that We, The People, Are The Media Now. Where once it was said to be unwise to “quarrel with a man who buys his ink by the barrel”, the reality is that every person today has a video camera in their pocket with social media providing the capability to reach millions with the click of a button. In seeking out alternative information sources, the people changed the channel.

    Back to Chris De Bruyne. It’s mid-afternoon on the 24th of March and British author Douglas Murray is speaking in Sydney. Murray’s presence attracts a pro-Palestine demonstration, one of whom assaults a pro-Israel counter-demonstrator in full view of NSW police, who don’t intervene. The incident is caught in De Bruyne’s livestream which, as an experienced independent, he broadcasts with an embedded watermark. Realising the newsworthiness, he offers to sell the footage to the major Australian news agencies, all of whom decline. 

    Citizen journalists and independents are, after all, objects of derision amongst the great and good of legacy news desks. They are qualified to arbitrate content to the public while De Bruyne, in their opinion, is not. But they rip off his footage anyway. 

    At 9pm Rita Panahi introduces the story on Sky News with the watermarked livefeed, scraped from De Bruyne’s social media account. She’s doing him a favour; other channels broadcast his material with the watermark blurred out. 

    Against a backdrop of community outrage at taxpayer-funded Rainbow Storytime in the local library, a pedestrian crossing had been whitewashed. 

    Paying compensation for copyright infringement is relatively inexpensive on the rare occasions an independent has the financial means to sustain litigation. As a bonus, legacy media can avoid the operational costs of employing cameramen in the field while there is content to be misappropriated and independents who can be exploited.

    It happens to De Bruyne so regularly he keeps a spreadsheet.

    Legacy media perceive the social media giants as the greatest threat to their business models. Utilising their incestuous relationships with predominantly left-wing political parties, they’re forcing those platforms to pay compensation for disseminating local news content. In Australia it’s called the News Media Bargaining Code and in New Zealand, the Fair Digital News Media Bargaining Bill. 

    The irony of demanding fees to redistribute their content whilst they themselves habitually infringe the copyright of independent producers is lost on the legacy media. But the deliciousness of the irony is that it isn’t the social media platforms that are their enemy. Rather, it’s the people who utilise them. While legacy media are distracted by a war they cannot win with social media corporations, Chris in Sydney and some bloke who goes by the handle “@churPanic” in Gisborne are the people on the ground, reshaping the media landscape by delivering unvarnished news and enabling audiences to reach their own conclusions. 

    And they are one component of a much broader trend. Traditionally trained journalists such as Chris Lynch Media in Christchurch are increasingly going independent. Blogs such as The BFD in Auckland are evolving into fully-fledged media operations. Writers publish to their subscribers on sites such as Substack in the first instance and take offers from legacy media to republish. 

    Join Mailing List

    Desperate to navigate the new realities of a dying industry, NZME appointed a blogger  to head their NewstalkZB+ division. Alternative media operators have emerged with innovative business models as varied as The Platform, financed by old money, and RCR, with support from their audience. The Underground Daily provide platforms to deliver services enabling new talent. 

    Collectively these individuals and organisations comprise the new media landscape.  Legacy media no longer controls the medium. It is the independents that create the message because content is king and they produce it. Time will tell, and the market will decide, if these new players can develop revenue streams beyond advertising to sustain themselves. 

    But one thing is certain: the media landscape belongs to them and its future is theirs to determine.

    Another Brick in the Wall

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    Libertarians don’t argue a lot about education policy. And yet, ‘school choice’ and ‘decentralised education’ are ideas that unite us with conservatives generally. Empowering parents to homeschool forms a branch of this policy, and indeed many parents have become more interested in homeschooling as Australia’s education standards have slipped and an ideological agenda has emerged within its curriculum. 

    But the thought ends there – that homeschooling simply represents an antidote to ideological capture within the school system. I think it’s time libertarians thought a bit more deeply about education. Like how entrenched our acceptance of outsourcing education to schools and ‘teachers’ has become. Or the extent to which we have internalised the notion of learning as a regimented and formal process. 

    Learning is not just books, essays, worksheets and equations, it is the people you meet and converse with, the skills you acquire, the experiences you go through and the interests you take up.

    Homeschooling is erroneously thought of as effectively school at home. Parents naturally baulk at the idea of devoting their entire day to home education in a ‘teacher’ role and depriving their children of the social interactions that children enjoy by attending school. Further to this, our cultural conditioning (that manifests as ‘trust the experts’) leads parents to believe that without formal training they are ill-equipped to provide their children with a sufficiently well-rounded education. 

    In reality, the extent to which formal education as a child is necessary to succeed in life and become competent as an adult is completely overblown. I’d wager that if we simply removed school (primary and secondary) entirely from society without a legislated replacement, we would not go backwards. Quite the opposite in fact. 

    Learning is not just books, essays, worksheets and equations, it is the people you meet and converse with, the skills you acquire, the experiences you go through and the interests you take up. Our collective obsession with productivity and hours ‘worked’ has spilled onto our unfortunate children, who are similarly subjected to unnecessary years of classroom ‘busy work’ – designed to homogenise student progress. 

    Homeschooled children spend much less time on focussed classroom-like tasks, but play more and spend more time with their families. Most importantly, they learn and grow at their own pace, following their passions and interests with vigour and an intensity that school students often don’t. Homeschooled children are not socially stunted either – in fact, they tend to exhibit more confidence and assertiveness (particularly with unfamiliar adults) than their age-segregated counterparts.  

    Australia’s education standards have slipped and an ideological agenda has emerged within its curriculum. 

    At last year’s Friedman Conference, I was most inspired by the insights of a homeschooling father and advocate who described one instance of his son deciding in his mid-teens he wanted to study science. Despite being mostly uninitiated with the prerequisite maths, within a year he had mastered several textbooks and was ready to begin tertiary level study in that field – a feat school pupils typically take a decade to achieve. 

    This is all before delving into how hopelessly unprepared school graduates are for adult life – financial literacy, civics, basic practical skills and even interpersonal skills are very much lacking in modern schooling. This continues into tertiary education. 

    Join Mailing List

    Libertarians and conservatives concerned with ideological capture within education institutions are missing the point – the entire system approaches learning with the same failed mentality that plagues workplaces. More hours spent in formal study does not equate to greater preparedness for employment or adult life in general. On the other hand, the time spent at home playing and with family, following their interests and pursuing their goals, is invaluable. 

    Politics in the classroom is just the beginning. Our children simply deserve better than what the education system is offering.  

    The Mask Is Off, Now

    By
    Lushington D Brady
    -
    0

    Reproduced with permission from The BFD https://thebfd.co.nz/2024/04/06/the-mask-is-off-now/

    It must be such a relief for him. Finally, Anthony Albanese doesn’t even have to bother pretending any more: he’s finally got the excuse he’s been itching for, to rip the mask off and show what he really thinks.

    Or, more correctly, what he knows will win precious votes in Western Sydney.

    Perhaps Albo isn’t an Israel-hating anti-Semite at heart. Most likely — we hope — it’s just his standard gutless opportunism. Although whether pandering to anti-Semites to win their votes is any less reprehensible than the real thing is debatable. At least the genuine anti-Semite has the poor excuse of being genuine.

    Albo would just sell his soul to try and cling to government.

    The excuse I’m referring to is the accidental killing of an Australian aid worker in Gaza. It’s the excuse Albanese has been desperate for, so he can give up even pretending to be even-handed, and give over to full-throated hatred of Israel.

    And what a pathetic, tawdry excuse it is.

    Leaving aside the question of just why even aid workers think they can swan into a war zone with zero risk, or just what the workers were doing delivering aid to the very people who cheered on the October 7 atrocities (consider, for example, that people delivering aid to Nazi Germany would have been treated as the Quislings they were), the hypocrisy from Albo and other world leaders is stunning.

    It is hypocritical and ridiculous for the citizens of nations that have accidentally killed far more people than Israel to now lecture Israel about its wayward bombs.

    When Australian Galit Carbone was murdered — not accidentally, but deliberately, gleefully, targeted for execution — Anthony Albanese said nothing. When Australian Michael O’Neill was killed while delivering aid in Ukraine, Albo made no thundering public condemnation, or brow-beating phone calls to either Russian or Ukrainian leaders.

    Albo’s hypocrisy is just the start.

    David Cameron has got some front. The Foreign Secretary is haranguing Israel over its tragic unintentional killing of seven aid workers in Gaza, and yet he oversaw a war in which such ‘friendly fire’ horrors were commonplace. In fact, more than seven people were slain in accidental bombings under Cameron’s watch. Terrible accidents happen in war. It was the Libya intervention of 2011. In that NATO-led excursion, in which Cameron, then prime minister, was an enthusiastic partner, numerous Libyans died as a result of misaimed bombs. Things got so bad that the West’s allies took to painting the roofs of their vehicles bright pink in an effort to avoid NATO’s missiles.

    In one awful incident, 13 people were slaughtered by our ‘friendly fire’. Their number included not only anti-Gaddafi rebels but also ambulance workers. It was in the wake of this calamity that the rebels got out the pink paint. ‘How to avoid friendly fire? Libya rebels try pink’, said a headline at NBC News.

    Yet now Cameron is on his high horse over Israel’s bombing of trucks carrying volunteers from the World Central Kitchen.

    At least the genuine anti-Semite has the poor excuse of being genuine.

    It’s also notable that Anthony Albanese and David Cameron are much less forthright in their condemnations of Hamas. Apart from mumbling a couple of half-hearted reprovals, Albo’s kept a constant eye on Western Sydney’s Muslim enclaves — one of the few remaining redoubts in a steadily-shrinking Labor vote.

    Joe Biden’s backers have done the maths, too — and coldly calculated that Muslims now outnumber Jews in the ranks of Democrat voters.

    US president Joe Biden has also weighed in, saying he is ‘outraged’ by the killing of the aid workers. You can’t help but wonder whether he directed similar outrage at his own nation’s military when 37 Afghanis at a wedding party, mostly women and children, were killed by mistake in a US airstrike.

    ‘Stop killing Afghan civilians’, the then president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, said to the newly elected US president, Barack Obama. And who was Obama’s vice-president? Biden, of course. You would think a man whose own military has killed huge numbers of people in error would understand that these things happen, even if every decent person would rather they didn’t.

    Vast numbers of civilians have been killed by accident by the US in recent years. At another wedding party in 2004, this time in Iraq, 11 women and 14 children were killed by American fire. Was there a ‘full, transparent explanation’ for that calamity?

    Join Mailing List

    The double standards are staggering. It is hypocritical and ridiculous for the citizens of nations that have accidentally killed far more people than Israel to now lecture Israel about its wayward bombs.

    And the fact remains that Hamas kills civilians, not in error, but as a matter of policy. They don’t even pretend that that’s not the case.

    Yet, there are the marching morons of the left, bellowing Hamas’ genocidal battle-cry, day in, day out.

    These cretinous idiots don’t give a damn about civilian lives, for all their pseudo-pious grandstanding. It’s only ever been about bashing Jews.

    Free Markets Work Better for Energy

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    Energy is again front and centre in the news with the debate over the merits of nuclear energy becoming mainstream. But then last week the Prime Minister announced a new scheme to subsidise the manufacture of solar panels in Australia. One wonders whether this is to support industry or just to close down a debating point against solar – that only 1% of the hardware used in Australia is manufactured locally. 

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn.  

    The truth is that free markets are more effective at capital allocation and problem solving than governments (assuming you accept there is a problem that needs solving). Free markets operate on profit incentives, driving businesses and individuals to invest resources where they are most efficiently used and valued, leading to innovation and optimal distribution of goods and services.

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.

    Australia’s existing solar energy subsidies are an obvious illustration of the misaligned priorities and inefficiencies that can arise from government intervention. The Albanese government’s commitment to injecting $1 billion into domestic solar panel manufacturing, including in coal-rich areas like the Hunter Valley, is a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience.  

    Australia’s history is littered with government involvement in business sectors that wasted tax payer money through inefficiencies.   The proof of free market superiority was demonstrated when entities like the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was privatised (under Paul Keating), as was Telstra (under John Howard), and Qantas Airways (under Bob Hawke). Each became far more efficient and successful post-privatisation. 

    A particularly significant example is the case of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, privatised under Paul Keating. Originally government-owned, CSL was started in 1916 to “serve the health needs of a country isolated by war”.  Fair enough perhaps.  

    The push by governments worldwide to subsidise solar energy, under the banner of sustainable development and carbon neutrality, seems forlorn. 

    CSL was privatised in 1994 and has since been transformed into a global biotechnology powerhouse. Post-privatisation, CSL significantly increased its operational efficiency, innovation capacity, and market reach, becoming a leading provider of vaccines and plasma products worldwide. CSL’s journey from a national vaccine manufacturer to a global biotech leader underscores the difference between how governments lose and free markets win.

    Albanese ought to learn lessons from Keating and Hawke on the superiority of private capital at solving public problems (banking, telecoms and aviation). Is energy so different?  And what does the Albanese government think it is going to achieve anyway with this $1bn investment?  How will Australian ventures compete with global giants, especially Chinese manufacturers which benefit from (ironically) cheaper electricity, lower labour costs, and economies of scale?

    The DeGrussa solar and battery project in Western Australia epitomises the sheer lack of commercial savvy possessed by government.   Funded in part (and thus enabled) by federal taxpayers, it is now being dismantled after just seven years, highlighting the precarious financial underpinnings of these subsidised solar ventures. This project, once a beacon for renewable energy in remote mining operations, became a financial quagmire, with the cost per tonne of avoided greenhouse gas exceeding market rates for carbon credits.  

    Join Mailing List

    The DeGrussa project serves as a cautionary tale.  There is a broader trend of hasty government interventions in the solar energy sector, driven by politics motives rather than economics. 

    While the drive towards renewable energy may be commendable (let’s buy into that for the sake of argument), the path to achieving it must be paved with prudent financial decisions and strategic planning – best executed by the free market. 

    Geopolitics and The Non-Aggression Principle

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    For an example of how libertarians philosophically wrestle, behold this exchange between the Arizona Libertarians and Australian Brett Lombardi:

    It is eloquent in its brevity: realpolitik confronting Rothbardian idealism.

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle. Put simply, this is the idea that violence and coercion between parties should be avoided, and that people should act cooperatively and in harmony. 

    It has mainly been applied to situations between individuals. But what about non-aggression between nation states, the geopolitical sphere?

    Enter libertarian heavyweight, Murray Rothbard:

    In National Defence and The Theory of Externalities, he wrote:

    “For the libertarian, the key to foreign policy is the defence of the homeland against aggression. The State should protect the citizens, keep the peace, and defend person and property from attack.”

    Straightforward enough, it seems. But what is ‘homeland’?

    Let’s put the Rothbardians to the test with a series of scenarios, asking whether each is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle:

    – The Chinese Navy sails to Venice Beach, California, with amphibious craft landing and troops shooting people. I’m sure we can agree this violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

    – What if US surveillance determined in advance that the Chinese were coming and warned them not to enter the 12 nautical miles of US territorial waters? The Chinese ignore and enter, then the US engage the aggressor at 11.9 nautical miles? Is this a Chinese or US violation?

    – What about at the US exclusive economic zone boundary of 200 nautical miles? If US engages, is this a violation?

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success.

    Rothbard doesn’t say what the ‘homeland’ is but would probably pick one of these boundaries.

    But we can test this further:

    – In 1893, US agents and businessmen mounted a successful coup against the Kingdom of Hawaii, asserting that their investment and private property rights were under threat. The US “annexed” Hawaii in 1898 as a territory. Did the US violate?

    – Then in 1941, Japan bombed this territory. Hawaii wasn’t even a state of the US at the time of the Pearl Harbour attack. Were the US defending their ‘homeland’ when it used anti-aircraft fire against the Japanese, or were they in continued violation of the Non-Aggression Principle because of their prior military-backed coup?

    – What if the Chinese today invaded Guam or American Samoa, both mere territories as Hawaii was? Would this be a violation? Both locations are closer to China than the US. Where does US ‘homeland’ end?

    Rothbard doesn’t define the extent of the US homeland, but I suspect he might regard these territories as empire-building and so in violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

    He heavily criticised Gulf War I as an example of creeping empires in The Case For Radical Idealism:

    “In foreign affairs, the libertarian sees the danger and evil of the U.S. launching an aggressive war against Iraq. This is why the true lovers of liberty should condemn the Bush Administration’s war, and make it crystal clear that, in their libertarian view, it is a criminal war of imperialist aggression.”

    In that vein: 

    – What about the joint US-Australian Military Surveillance Base at Pine Gap, Northern Territory? Among its many purposes, this base is used by the US to determine whether Guam and American Samoa are under threat of attack. In an age of intercontinental missiles taking only 30 minutes to reach their targets, can the US defend this base as a defence of its homeland?

    – If the Chinese bombed Darwin’s Robertson Barricks at which 2,500 US marines are based on the invitation of Australia, does the US violate the Non-Aggression Principle by defending those US marines and Australian soldiers?

    – If China ‘annexed’ Taiwan, would that be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle? If so, is it really the view of libertarians in Arizona that libertarians should merely shrug our shoulders?

    Rothbard shunned territorial pre-emption yet these are realpolitik situations. I think this is a huge Rothbardian blind-spot.

    Should the British have waited for Napoleon to land on the beaches of Dover? Should the Australians have met the Japanese at Cooktown rather than Kokoda? At what point should the British RAF have engaged the raiding Luftwaffe? Over Canterbury, Calais or Cologne?

    Even if we just define ‘homeland’ as current national borders, there is still much to challenge us about Rothbard. For instance, in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, he elaborates on the type of impermissible intervention:

    “A non-interventionist policy means that America does not interfere militarily, politically or covertly in the affairs of the other nations.”

    Rothbard refined this further, in War, Peace and The State:

    “War, then, even a just defensive war, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals themselves. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion.”

    So, Rothbardian libertarians such as those in Arizona argue that defence of the homeland against aggression is permitted but that defence cannot extend to preventative measures and defensive force may only be aimed at individual war criminals!

    How a commander would know, in the heat of battle, the identity of a war criminal in advance of a war crimes tribunal is beyond me.

    None of these expressions of libertarianism give me much confidence that, when applied, practical benefits will result. And yet the entire point of libertarian philosophy is to spawn policies which work to unleash human flourishing. 

    More realism and less idealism, I say.

    In this regard, I am not a Rothbardian idealist. I prefer the view of leading realpolitik libertarians like David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute who wrote:

    One of the foundational concepts of libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    “Libertarians should be realistic about the world. Some level of military and intelligence capability is necessary for national defence and to secure the freedoms that libertarians cherish.”

    And Nick Gillespie, Editor-At-Large, Reason Magazine who offered:

    “Libertarians are not pacifists. We recognise that the state has a role in national defence. The key is to ensure that this role is strictly limited to protecting the country from external threats and does not devolve into unnecessary interventions.”

    Or this from Cato Institute’s, Julian Sanchez:

    “Libertarians should recognise that there may be cases where limited and well-defined military intervention can be justified on humanitarian grounds, such as preventing genocide.”

    Let me marshal further libertarian opinion to counter Rothbard. Here, leading US libertarian Senator Rand Paul:

    “While a strict non-interventionist foreign policy may have its merits, there can be instances where limited government intervention is necessary to protect the nation’s security and interest.”

    And Brian Doherty, Senior Editor at Reason Magazine, who penned:

    “While avoiding unnecessary conflicts is crucial, libertarians should acknowledge the importance of maintaining a credible defense to deter potential aggressors and protect individual rights from external threats.”

    Yet further still, perhaps more gently, even leading libertarian philosopher and Rothbard rival, Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia, wrote:

    “A minimal state devoted to the task of protecting rights and enforcing contract will, if minimal enough, and if rights include rights to self-defence, do all that government can do.”

    Join Mailing List

    So limited government intervention, doing “all that government can do” and deterrence feature strongly.

    Libertarians must be practical and realistic in geopolitics to achieve electoral success. Freedom House says there are only 38 free nations in a world of 195 countries. Freedom is rare and must be protected wherever it blooms. 

    Brett Lombardi gets it right.

    The Rule of Law is Being Ignored by Conservatives

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    3

    The High Court recently ruled that:

    – if immigration detention is not a practical step towards a person being removed from the country, the detention amounts to punishment, and

    – governments can only mete out punishment if they are sentencing someone for a crime.

    This ruling led to the release of around 140 people who were in immigration detention but not on a path to removal from the country.

    Both the ruling and the release were positive developments.

    The people in question could not be lawfully removed from Australia because Australian law: 

    – requires another country to take them, and there was no country willing to do so,

    – deems them to be subject to persecution overseas and hence deserving of protection here, or

    – deems them to be physically or mentally unfit for removal.

    These laws are decent and should remain. 

    Some of the people in question have committed no crime. There is no justification for indefinitely detaining people like this, just as there is no justification for detaining citizens who are non-criminals.

    The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians. 

    Some of the people in question have committed crimes, but all of them have completed the sentences handed down for those crimes. There is no justification for continuing to detain people who have completed their sentences.

    If you are found guilty of a crime, you are sentenced by a court that has all the evidence before it. Years later, a panel or tribunal considering post-sentence punishment will be inherently less informed about your crime than the original court, and may end up punishing you for things you are yet to do and may not do. The injustice of this is exacerbated if post-sentence punishments were not part of the law when you committed the crime.

    In Western civilisation, a certain amount of surveillance and the availability of preliminary offences like conspiracy, aiding-and-abetting, and attempt, are balanced responses to the prospect of future crime. Preventative detention, continuing detention, curfews, and ankle bracelets are not.

    The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.  Despite this, conservative politicians have suggested the ruling and release were bad outcomes.

    Liberal National politicians have suggested that the Labor Government should have maintained its long-standing lie to the courts that the people in question were on a path to removal from the country. 

    These politicians have called for public reporting on the location of people who have been released from immigration detention (without corresponding calls relating to citizens released from prisons). 

    They have also claimed that, under Labor, Australian women are at risk of being assaulted by foreign criminals.

    That said, Labor’s approach has been far from enlightened. Labor argued against, and has since opposed, the High Court ruling.  Labor has also punished and imposed constraints on the people released from detention without doing anything similar to citizens with the same criminal history (or absence thereof).

    Crime more generally

    The hysteria surrounding immigration detention is part of a long line of unfounded crime wave fears stoked by conservative politicians. 

    The High Court ruling and the subsequent release of people from detention are in line with the rule of law, decency, justice, and the tradition of Western civilisation.

    The Liberal National Coalition has recently proposed that those who make social media posts depicting violence, drug offences, or property offences be hit with up to two years’ imprisonment plus a ban from social media. 

    Conservative politicians regularly call for less bail, so that people are locked up despite not being convicted of a crime. They cite re-offending as a reason for more incarceration, when re-offending can just as readily serve as evidence of the failure of incarceration. They also justify calls for more police, based on claims that crime is out of control.

    As it happens, crime rates in Australia are low and falling.

    3.1 per cent of people older than 14 were victims of physical assault in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.7 per cent. 

    Over the same period, the rate for robbery went from 0.6 per cent to 0.2 per cent.

    3.3 per cent of households were victims of break-ins in 2008-09. In 2022-23 it was 1.8 per cent.

    Over the same period, the rate for malicious property damage went from 11 per cent to 3.7 per cent. 

    Join Mailing List

    Regarding youth crime, in 2008-09 the rate of offending by those aged 10 to 17 was 3,186.8 per 100,000. In 2022-23 it was 1,847.3 per 100,000.

    And with crime by people born overseas, such people make up 30 per cent of the population but only 17 per cent of the prison population. 

    It is incumbent upon those who are liberally-minded to oppose arbitrary detention and punishment, fanciful claims of crime waves, and the conservatives who perpetuate such madness.

    No, Men are not OK

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    2

    As a society, we generally do not like to talk about suicide. And when we do, we tend to avoid a key issue – why do so many men take their own lives, and why are so many of them middle-aged?

    The statistics are stark: of 3,249 Australians who took their own lives in 2022, 2,455 were males. That’s more than the number of women dying from breast and cervical cancer combined. 

    Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men. The overall suicide rate was 12.3 deaths per 100,000 population but for men it was 18.8. 

    The absolute highest rate is among men aged 85 or over (32.7 per 100,000 versus 10.6 for women), but the next highest is middle-aged males (45-59) at 32.6 (versus 8.8 for women). These rates have also increased over the last decade. 

    By contrast the murder rate, at less than 1.0 per 100,000, has been declining for decades, while deaths from road accidents (4.6 per 100,000 people) are also trending down. 

    Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men.

    Someone taking their own life at 85 probably has a reason we can understand; there are downsides to life at that age. But men in middle age have many years of active life ahead of them. They are often at the peak earning stage and are obviously somebody’s son, brother, husband, partner, father or grandfather. That so many are killing themselves is a tragedy of enormous proportions. 

    And yet, while we hear plenty about youth suicide, blamed on everything from NAPLAN tests to sharing dick pics, and indigenous suicides, for which incarceration rates and white supremacy are supposedly responsible, when it comes to apparently normal middle-aged men taking their own lives there is stony silence. 

    The reasons for the high rates are not well understood. Even the common assumption that it is a mental health issue is probably wrong. Mental health has become a growth industry, with the problems of everyday life increasingly medicalised, but certainly no worse among middle aged men.

    To the extent that the causes are known, they conflict with current narratives about the place of men in today’s society; that masculinity is toxic, all men are responsible for domestic violence, all men are potential rapists, and society is patriarchal. Indeed, unless they are indigenous, men are blamed for just about everything wrong with the world.  

    To the extent that there is evidence, it appears family and relationship breakdown may be a major underlying factor. Statistics show men live longer and happier lives when they are in a committed relationship. 

    That goes some way to explain the suicide rate among men affected by separation or divorce, particularly with children involved. Not only can they be made liable to pay child support that leaves them unable to support a new family, but false allegations of violence and sexual misconduct are routinely used to deny them access to their children. 

    Close to nine Australians are taking their own lives each day, of which seven are men. 

    But there are obviously other factors too. If they work with women, men are at constant risk of accusations of bullying if they disagree. If they stare, it is sexual harassment. If they work with black or brown people, practically anything can be interpreted as racist (although they can never be victims of racism themselves). If they employ women, paying them less than men is misogyny, irrespective of the roles or hours worked. 

    Increasingly, men risk accusations of rape and the onus to prove consent, years or decades later.

    It is likely most men take their own lives because they believe they are failing. There are many reasons for that belief, but failure as a bread winner is probably the main one; protecting and providing for a family is hard-wired, notwithstanding the claims of radical feminists that it is social conditioning. So when men lose their job, fail at business or are simply unable to meet expectations, they suffer. The all-time highest rates of suicide were in 1930 during the Great Depression, when unemployment was huge.  

    Libertarians believe in self-ownership and accept suicide is a matter of personal choice. But that does not preclude encouraging a different choice; indeed, it is arguably a moral obligation. The question is, how to do that? 

    Society has many champions speaking up for women, children, Aborigines, gays and lesbians, but precious few for men. It needs more of them. 

    Join Mailing List

    We need more people making the case for lower taxes and less red and green tape, so there is less unemployment and fewer business failures. We need more who refuse to judge others on the basis of gender, race or sexual preference. We need more who defend the role of masculinity in strong, brave and selfless men. And we need more who insist that children need their fathers. 

    There’s something we can all do, and we might just save a life.

    Exciting times ahead for uranium mining in Western Australia

    By
    Meaghan Whyte
    -
    0

    During the 2017 WA election, McGowan’s Labor opposition campaigned hard to reinstate the ban on uranium mining. They followed through on this after winning the state election that year. 

    Both Labor and the Greens ran scare mongering campaigns conflating uranium mining with the public’s historic nervousness regarding nuclear energy. Prior scare mongering has led to uranium mining projects being distrusted and shunned by the community. 

    However, public opinion on uranium and nuclear energy are rapidly evolving. The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging. Peter Dutton advised an economic forum in Sydney recently that he has consulted face-to-face with leading energy professionals from Europe, Asia and North America. Dutton will also be attending similar meetings in the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. 

    Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    Following Dutton’s announcement, Western Australia’s Liberal leader Libby Mettam declared her party will repeal Labor’s state uranium mining ban, if Liberals win the 2025 state election. If this were to occur, uranium miners could utilise the standard minerals environmental approvals process.

    Labor has continued its anti-uranium campaign, with WA Premier Roger Cook saying uranium mines are not profitable at current prices. This is a big call and not very credible, considering uranium has already more than tripled in price since 2020 as the world re-embraces nuclear energy. 

    Western Australia has a robust, experienced labour force in the mining and resources sector. This labour force is perfectly poised to take up work in uranium mining. 

    Global demand for uranium looks to be steadily increasing. Opening up uranium mines in Western Australia will offer stable employment for the sector’s workforce. This will be a relief, given fluctuations in other sectors. For example, six nickel mines across the state closed in 2023 as a consequence of a 43% price drop on nickel after Indonesia, the Philippines and China caused a glut in the market.

    Western Australia has 11 known deposits of uranium, totalling approximately 226,000 tonnes.

    The Liberals and Nationals are leading their 2025 federal election campaign with pro nuclear energy messaging.

    In 2017, Labor gave exemptions to four uranium projects which had been approved prior to the state election: 

    • Wiluna Project, owned by Toro Energy 
    • Yeelirrie Project owned by Cameco
    • Mulga Rock Project owned by Vimy Resources
    • Kintyre Project, owned by Cameco

    Mulga Rock Project never started production, and the other three stalled due to financial pressures soon thereafter. Should the uranium mining ban be lifted, the number of uranium mines across Western Australia will most certainly increase. 

    2025 will see nuclear power generation reach new records globally, heralding an exciting renaissance of nuclear energy. This is driven by increasing demands for electricity that is both cheap and reliable while not being reliant on fossil fuels. 

    Thirty-two countries already utilise the energy source, and 50 are set to introduce it. Many of these 82 countries will be potential buyers, should Western Australia lift its ban on uranium mining. 

    Join Mailing List

    In a recent interview the successful contrarian investor Rick Rule, President and CEO of Sprott US Holdings, commented that:

    “The country that has access to the uranium, the country that has access to the stable craton that’s dry, the country that has access to a skilled labour force and the rule of law, is this truly odd country called Australia. The uranium business should be an Australian business.”

    Western Australia is perfectly positioned to remove the government ban on uranium mining, and capitalise on Rick’s salient advice.

    Granny Basher’s Discharge Sends the Right Message

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    3

    One year ago I made a young man famous. The video footage of the horrific political violence he perpetrated against a 71 year-old lady at a Women’s Rights rally shocked the world, leading to international condemnation of New Zealand. 

    Two weeks ago I was in court to witness his sentencing: he received a discharge without conviction and his name was permanently suppressed. 

    Immediately after the hearing I interviewed his distressed victim on the courthouse steps and published the unredacted version of her Victim Impact Statement. This is the original, containing the changes agreed between the prosecution and defence counsels, written in the police prosecutor’s own handwriting, before it was handed back to the victim so she could read it in open court.

    The publication of this material led to further international outrage, intensified by their sharing and re-posting on social media by celebrities as varied as Alison Moyet and Martina Navratilova. The case appeared to obviously justify a conviction and substantial sentence. The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court. 

    Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy.

    Kiwis, on the other hand, were quite unsurprised. 
    A key reason is that the Establishment was directly implicated in the violence. MPs of the two governing parties at the time, Labour and the Greens, actually participated in the mob. One Green party MPs incited her 41,000 followers that morning stating she was “So ready to fight Nazis” on her way to the demonstration. Another appeared to justify employing political violence against her perceived opponents in a subsequent television interview. Even Chris Hipkins, the Labour party Prime Minister at the time, effused about how proud he would have been to support it in person.

    New Zealand is a small country. That the government of Labour and the Greens had joined forces with Trades Union and Rainbow groups to suppress women’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly is widely known. If anything, the reaction from officialdom was expected.

    What followed was entirely predictable. Only two of the many perpetrators of violence that day have been charged. One has just been all-but acquitted and the other is yet to see the inside of a courtroom, a full year after the event. Victims of other assaults were told that police “were not there to protect them” by multiple police officers. In refusing to pursue several arrests and prosecutions of identified offenders, some victims were themselves blamed by police for their own assaults.

    To this day, none of the organisers who incited violence have been charged. None of the legacy media organisations which fabricated false narratives has been sanctioned by governing or government bodies.

    Instead, the people of New Zealand have been treated to political theatre. Panem et circenses without the bread.

    The case against this young man is a case in point. In my opinion police deliberately bungled the investigation and prosecution at every juncture; initially informing the victim that charges couldn’t be laid without knowing her assailant’s identity, then minimising charges when the identity was supplied. The offender could have been charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act or the lesser charge of Male Assaults Female; instead he received the minimum charge police could possibly engineer: Common Assault.

    The world was incredulous that such egregious political violence captured on film could be excused by a New Zealand court. 

    And from there it only gets worse. Diversion is a system in New Zealand where first-time offenders, typically the young, avoid conviction for minor offences. It is atypical for Diversion to be offered to an offender in a case of serious assault, particularly when opposed by the victim. Yet the police offered Diversion to the offender anyway, only retracting it with risible claims of “administrative error” in response to public uproar. 

    This has all been theatre. The people have been distracted by the ebbs and flows of this case while the broader issues remain. In my opinion the defendant at the centre of it all is almost inconsequential: a young man radicalised on campus by far-Left, extremist propaganda who committed an awful crime and has become the focus of worldwide rage because of it.

    While those who radicalised him have not been called to account.

    New Zealand prescribes puberty blockers to children at ten times the rate of the United Kingdom’s NHS, at least it did until the NHS banned such prescriptions a week ago. Attending gender training is mandatory for some employees in both the public and private sectors. New Zealand birth certificates cannot be used as a supplemental form of identification in any Western country because of the Self-Identification law, unopposed by any party in parliament. Drag queens groom children weekly in libraries, paid for by taxpayers. Midwives who use the words “woman” or “mother” risk de-registration by the Midwifery Council. The Relationships and Sexual Education program mandated by the Ministry of Education is simply rainbow indoctrination of impressionable children. 

    Join Mailing List

    Objecting to any of this invites condemnation, ostracism and even unemployment. Gender ideology has permeated New Zealand society to such an extent that Kiwis live in fear of the consequences of not adhering to its orthodoxies.

    Freedom of expression, women and children’s rights, matter in a democracy. The true battle we should be fighting is against Gender Ideology, those who promulgate it, and those who employ cancellation and political violence against those who dissent. Meanwhile the Establishment laughs at how easy it was to distract our attention by feeding us a steady diet of bread and circuses about some stupid kid.

    1...456...16Page 5 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv