Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Monday, November 25, 2024
    Latest

    Policy Spotlight

    Home Policy Spotlight Page 8

    (Don’t) Be Your Own Boss

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    By ‘closing the loopholes’, Labor ultimately seeks to undermine self-employment, casual employment and competition, Libertarians must take note. 

    November 17 2023 The scene is the 2023 HR Nicholls Society conference in North Sydney; the speaker is Ken Phillips; the topic: Federal Labor’s ‘Closing the Loopholes’ bill. 

    Phillips is unassuming, plainly dressed, but he means business. In a conference otherwise dominated by partisan interests and the society’s own history, he cuts through with a powerful and practical message. Having dissected and analysed all 274 pages of the ‘Loophole’ bill and written his own submission (on behalf of Self-Employed Australia [SEA]), he has been in regular contact with the crossbench, who Labor currently relies on to pass legislation. 

    Ken Phillips

    Phillips was optimistic then, satisfied that the crossbench were heeding his call for caution and discernment over the prevailing narrative. But it was not to last; Senators David Pocock and Jackie Lambie combined to split, then pass, the first tranche of the bill, including concerning new provisions that escalate the power of union delegates. But the worst is yet to come.

    Subject to an inquiry this year, the remainder of the bill seeks to undermine commercial contracts, create strict pre-conditions that define ‘casual’ employees, and effectively prevent workers from being their own boss. 

    The loophole bill relies on the rhetoric of exploitation: pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’. 

    90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere.

    The reality is quite different – I should know, having been a contract worker and a casual for much of my working life. These reforms in fact represent a direct attack on my livelihood. 

    Keep it casual

    As Phillips demonstrates in his analysis of wages by employee type, casual workers are financially better off on an hours-worked basis to the tune of about 6% (more if you consider the higher super contributions). What’s more, being a casual employee allows for the worker to ramp up or down their hours, take on a different employer and maintain flexibility much more readily – something I made use of as a student particularly.  

    Businesses also require flexibility to operate effectively in the marketplace, as demand and staffing requirements fluctuate. The loopholes bill creates stringent regulations on how an employee can be considered casual. This will simply disincentivise businesses from hiring staff as employers will have fewer options to reduce their wage liability when business is slower. 

    Fixed contracts

    Contract and self-employed workers are also in the sights of Labor and the unions. The proposed legislation coins a new term – ‘employee like’ – to describe self-employed workers. This means self-employed workers will be subject to the industrial relations system, undermining the nature of commercial contracts between consenting parties. 

    As a contract worker myself, I do not miss the IR system. My generous employers allow me paid leave entitlements anyway, and I can readily work for an employer based anywhere in the world, making my own choices with regards to super contributions.  

    Pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’.

    Getting a gig

    A major objective of the loophole bill is supposedly to protect workers from exploitation in the ‘gig economy.’ The reality is quite different: well over 90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere – they are ‘hustlers’, earning top-up income outside of regular employment.

    There are concerns for market competition too. By eliminating self-employed workers from the marketplace, large operators in industries such as transport and construction will face less competition. How this market concentration will benefit workers and consumers, or is consistent with Labor’s message to voters, I cannot reconcile.  

    An unlikely union

    It is a good deal for those large operators though, and it’s an especially good deal for the unions, perhaps revealing the true motivations behind this bill. Trade union membership has dwindled for decades, and the availability of flexible or casual work has further undermined their influence. 

    Join Mailing List

    By forcing all workers into employment contracts subject to IR law, the unions can once again wield significant influence. Large employers can collude with these unions and suppress competition, diluting the influence of smaller or independent players in their respective industries. 

    The big loser is of course the workers, who lose flexibility in their employment arrangements, are forced to work in industries dominated by a few large players, and are financially less well off if they are casual. 

    It is truly a sad state of affairs that the party of workers would propose such a bill, but it is characteristic of Australian politics, long divorced from the interests of common workers.
    Further reading: https://selfemployedaustralia.com.au/be-your-own-boss/

    University River

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    2

    In William Blake’s hymn Jerusalem, the phrase ‘those dark Satanic mills’ was assumed to refer to the cotton and woollen mills of his time and their terrible working conditions.  

    Based on the date of the hymn and Blake’s religious background, many question whether he was referring to the Dickensian factories and cotton mills at all, but rather to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

    Blake was scathing of universities. He loathed them. He saw them churning out, factory-like, a new godless world. 

    “I will not cease from mental fight”, he writes in a subsequent verse. 

    These elite establishments, he considered, were incapable of mental fight.

    Fast forward to December 2023 and United States Congresswoman Elise Stefanik asking a number of University Presidents at a Congressional hearing whether “calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?”

    Staggeringly, each of the University Presidents – including Harvard University President Claudine Gay – refused to answer in the affirmative, saying only, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.”

    “It would depend on the context,” she added.

    In other words, only when Jews are actually murdered would the university step in!

    The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful.

    Similar responses were given by the other University Presidents, which would no doubt be mirrored by responses from some of Australia’s elite universities were they to be asked the same question.

    ‘Satanic’. ‘Incapable of mental fight’. Exactly what Blake was referring to.

    The above exchange is what one might call a ‘shibboleth’.

    In his excellent book Blink!, Malcolm Gladwell describes how it is possible to weigh up situations in the ‘blink’ of an eye.

    In other words, how to make good decisions in an instant by doing what he calls ‘thin slicing’. Thin slicing can be likened to slicing a big salami, and no matter how thinly you slice it, everything you want to know about the whole salami is in that one slice.

    Often you don’t have time to study or research an organisation or a person; you have to analyse what is going on by finding that ‘thin slice’. That shibboleth.

    Shibboleth is a Hebrew word meaning ‘stream.’ It is referred to in the Old Testament book of Judges, where Jephthah and the men of Gilead fought the Ephraimites and captured the Jordan River crossing. As people crossed the river, to distinguish who was friend from foe, they had everyone say the word ‘shibboleth’. If they couldn’t pronounce it properly, they knew they were the enemy. From this, the word shibboleth was absorbed into the English language to describe a key identifier or a dead give-away. 

    What we saw in the University Presidents’ exchange was that dead give-away.

    Jewish Liberal MP Julian Leeser has said: “I go back to the universities because this is the cauldron where it all starts.”

    Julian Leeser

    The reluctance of universities to confront what is happening to Jewish students is shameful. A recent scorecard on incidents of anti-Semitism in Australian universities found that in the last year there had been 56 incidents of anti-Semitism at the University of Sydney, 49 at the University of NSW, 17 at the University of Technology Sydney, 9 at Macquarie University, 7 at the University of Melbourne, and 6 at Monash University. 72 per cent of those surveyed said experiences of anti-Semitism had worsened since the Hamas attack of October 7.

    Part of the explanation for this lies with Gramsci’s long march through the institutions to impose Marxist thinking – beginning with the universities. It is where formative minds are indoctrinated. 

    Once out of university, these graduates disperse into other key institutions – the law, politics, media, business – where Marxist ideology soon takes hold.

    It was once the case that occupations such as nursing, teaching and journalism were learned ‘on the job’ – on the hospital ward, in the classroom, doing the rounds of the courts – supplemented by part-time study. Journalism, in particular, was considered more of a trade than a profession. 

    Not anymore. Now, they all go to university first. 

    Calling for the genocide of Jews breached their university’s codes of conduct on harassment and bullying?

    Sometimes, when a regime has been in place for a very long time, it is not possible to break through that system.  Over time, institutions – such as the public service or the industrial relations system or higher education – become adept at building up defences and seeing off zealous reformers. 

    The only option is to break with it. 

    Employers should be encouraged to hire students with the appropriate aptitude straight from high school and facilitate their continued education in the form of part-time study at industry-specific places of higher learning.

    I myself was recruited straight from high school into a materials testing and research laboratory.

    Similarly, sponsored employment traineeships and cadetships could be rolled out across all sectors, so as to by-pass the toxic environment that our universities have become.  

    Let me finish with a story.

    A group of hikers was out walking when they chanced upon a river. Their attention was suddenly drawn to a number of young people in difficulties being carried downstream by the river’s strong current. 

    The hikers immediately jumped into the river and started rescuing the youngsters.

    Join Mailing List

    As they pulled them out, they noticed that more and more young people were being swept towards them. 

    As more youngsters appear, one of the hikers climbed out of the river.

    “Where are you going?”, asks one of the other hikers.

    “I’m going upstream to find out who is throwing all these kids in the river!”, he replied.

    The universities are the river. We have to stop our young ones being thrown in.

    Capturing The Glory Undeservedly

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    1

    Somehow, the West has gotten into a real twist about identity, especially that of minorities. In the name of justice for minorities, identity is being used to undermine equality and liberty. Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority. The result is that common humanity and individual freedoms are being undermined. More insidiously, merit is being forgotten.

    Much of the work on behalf of minorities has come subsequent to their success. Liberalism was their friend. It may have taken longer than, for example, white working-class people to succeed, but they got there or are well underway. Identity campaigns are not helping anyone except the elite of the minorities trying to capture more of the spoils. 

    For example, the University of Technology Sydney announced in 2018 that it intended to build a First Nations College. Fortunately, it has not progressed too far: the 2018 announcement that it would open in 2023 remains unfulfilled. It is a pity Monash University had no Working Class College when I attended in the 1970s. I could have avoided those middle-class private school wankers by hanging around with grunters from my old suburb. Well, those that made it to university. 

    Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day.

    It is true that other identities, such as Catholics and Anglicans, built university colleges, but they mostly raised their own money and had a deep history of scholarship. There are women’s colleges too, but these, like single-sex schools, are fading.

    The aim of the UTS college, it said, was to help ‘forge a more inclusive society’. By separating one race from others? Mind you, race is a bit of a stretch. The students most likely to attend would be from the suburbs and probably the children of intermarried parents; in other words, they are highly integrated – think Pearson, Langton, Davis, Behrendt, etc. 

    Aboriginal and working class students are not so successful as a group, but those who are bright can and do make it. That is the point. Others may not want to attend, preferring to follow in their parent’s footsteps, where TAFE beckons and practical skills can be acquired that are less susceptible to identity propaganda. Even a Labor Prime minister has woken up to free fees for TAFE.

    The UTS college also claims its purpose is ‘to remove the real and perceived barriers that prevent Indigenous participation in higher education and the broader economy.’ They made it to university on merit, didn’t they? The rest is up to them, or should be, unless they are to be cossetted forever. The fear of segregated colleges (UTS says they will allow some non-indigenous students) is that they discourage integration and shun inclusion.

    According to Pluckrose’s Social Injustice, identity politics emerged in the 1960s within the broader manifestation of postmodernism. Postmodernism emerged in academia as a philosophy that questioned everything. It is so sceptical that it does not believe in objective truth or knowledge, believing everything, even knowledge, is corrupted by politics and political power. It opened the door to identity as a powerful tool to undermine common humanity, individual freedom, and merit. 

    Minority group identity has become a weapon to be wielded against the alleged privileges of the majority.

    A more prosaic explanation of identity politics is that of Mounk’s The Identity Trap. He explains that the Left was lured by collective action against the majority, where, despite the triumph of liberalism, minorities were marginalised. And yet, the minorities only had to wait; liberalism was their saviour. Actions such as a First Nations College come after the triumph of liberalism. It is an attempt by successful Aborigines to capture more power and glory undeservedly.

    The antidote to the evils of postmodernism and identity politics is, of course, liberalism. Pluckrose appeals to secularism’s principle: ‘In a secular society, no one should be punished for rejecting religion or any other ideology.’ In other words, stop the cancel culture gig. The former President of Harvard University, Professor Gay, resigned because she was the culmination of cancel culture. When pressed by a Congressional committee on virulent anti-Israel protests on her campus, she defended the cancel mob. Simple direct questions from a single Republican representative outed her. 

    Mounk recommends that leaders cultivate a spirit of tolerance of ideas; for example, when racist accusations are made, he recommends no discipline until the facts are clear. That seems obvious, but the rush to judgment fuels the fire. Let the heat die and ensure proper processes to hear matters in the cool light of day. Don’t allow craven editors and the X (Twitter) mob to be the judge. Gay was forced out not because she wanted to let things settle before acting against anti-Semitic hate speech but because she was in a vanguard that selected students on race and brooked no demur from those in the hate speech camp.

    Join Mailing List

    Essentially, there are no ‘identity’ ideas, just ideas. Joining in this crusade for liberalism, our group, Close the Gap Research, is working to uncover one of the engine rooms of the identity industry as it manifests in Aboriginal politics. We are reviewing the qualifications of professors who claim Aboriginal heritage. We are also analysing Reconciliation Action Plans where organisations profess to do good but instead reinforce separate identities and undervalue the contribution of people as employees: workers. Now, there’s an old-fashioned idea.

    Gary Johns is chair of Close the Gap Research and author of The Burden of Culture.

    Go Where You Are Treated Best

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    2

    ‘Go where you are treated best’ is the tagline of entrepreneur, Andrew Henderson, founder of the business Nomad Capitalist. Andrew and his team help entrepreneurs, retirees and others move their lives out of countries like Australia to countries where they will be treated best. It is a business that has being growing exponentially in recent years.

    When I first heard Andrew speak those six words during the earliest days of the Covid sham, it hit me like a power-slap from Mike Tyson. What the hell was I still doing in Australia? For years I thought I had been fighting to build small businesses. But I had not; I could do business just fine. I had a bunch of great products and services in an interesting niche. I liked my customers, and my customers liked me. The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it. The reality was Australia no longer treated me well, let alone best.

    The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments. 

    “We crush many a dream around [here]” was proudly proclaimed to me by an officer of Melbourne’s Stonnington Council when I applied for a permit to open a simple, small business. He also bragged how new laws rendered thousands of commercial properties “completely unlettable”. Sadly, the only thing shocking about his statements was his candor. His malicious and malignant attitude towards honest citizens, small business operators and the future success of the country was what I had come to expect from Australian bureaucrats.

    Being an unwilling participant in an abusive relationship with local government was only part of the problem. The bigger problem was the direction of the country as a whole.

    The absolutely disgusting and immoral human rights abuses orchestrated by the Victorian Government, media and law enforcement during the Covid sham was not an aberration. Nor was the Victorian public’s willing complicity. It was unequivocal proof of the direction society had been headed.

    So what is a patriotic Australian supposed to do? Vote? For whom? Protest? And get shot with rubber bullets or sprayed with mace for not supporting the Government-approved message? Exercise your free-speech online? And get arrested in your home, in front of your kids, even if you are pregnant? Or have your government-permission to practice your profession cancelled? Or have your bank accounts frozen? 

    Australia does not have a bill of rights. You have no legislated right to free speech or right to protest. The Government could not care less about having signed the international treaty for human rights. Their Covid shenanigans proved that unequivocally.

    When democracy has been hijacked, like it has been in much of the so-called “free world”, your most powerful option is to vote with your feet and go where you are treated best. If enough people leave, the people and government left behind will be forced to change, to stem further losses and attract good people back. If they do not change, the country will fail as their beliefs and policies were destined to anyway.

    The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it.

    Unfortunately, for most people leaving is not an option. The nature of most people’s vocations, businesses, finances and/or families makes leaving all but impossible. There will always be people who have no option but to stay and fight against bad governments. But that does not mean staying and fighting is noble; in most cases throughout history, staying to fight your own government has been a terrible option.

    For the few people who can move their lives and business elsewhere in the world, they owe it to themselves and their country to go where they are treated best. It is not weak or cowardly, as many jealous people will say. Nothing is harder than leaving family and a lifetime of friends, to face the uncertainty of restarting life in a new country. But it can be the most patriotic thing you can do; not to mention cathartic, enlightening and positively life changing. 

    Join Mailing List

    A country is not its government. Being so disgusted and disillusioned with a government that you move says nothing about your feelings toward the country or its people. The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments. 

    Australians are lucky to be welcomed all over the world. Wherever you go, you will always be Australian (or whatever nationality you are). If you go where you really are treated best, you will almost certainly be more financially, emotionally and spiritually successful than you could have been under the current government in Australia. 

    Nomad Capitalist has a website. I recommend taking a look at it.

    Unions And Religion

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    2

    Unions and libertarians disagree about almost everything. However, they do both share one core tenet – the right to “freedom of association”.  Well, maybe not so much anymore.

    Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals. It also happens to be a right incorporated in international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  Freedom of association stands as a cornerstone of a free society.

    Unions rely on freedom of association for their very existence. Unless workers are free to associate, there can be no unions. 

    Finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith.

    However, a piece of recent news begs the question as to whether this right is still valued, or maybe even understood, by the union movement.  Or perhaps the left’s war on Christianity gets precedence over one of the union movement’s foundation principles.

    Unions are now lobbying the Federal government to legislate to prevent religious schools from hiring teachers on the basis of faith.

    For many Christians it is their faith that has led them to libertarianism – for reasons discussed elsewhere on Liberty Itch.  I won’t revisit here that any attack on Christianity is also an attack on our civil liberties.

    Not all libertarians are church goers of course (albeit they should seriously consider becoming so). Secular libertarians should be alarmed, nonetheless. The debate over proposed religious discrimination laws in Australia presents a significant point of contention, particularly concerning the principle of freedom of association.

    The union movement’s position on this is riddled with hypocrisy.

    Firstly, the right to freedom of association also extends to religious organizations, allowing them to maintain their faith-based hiring practices. By pushing to restrict these schools’ hiring autonomy, the trade unions risk undermining the very freedom of association they hold dear.

    Freedom of association is a fundamental right cherished by libertarians, as it supports the principle of voluntary cooperation and the right to form associations to pursue common goals.

    Second, trade unions, which typically advocate for workers’ rights, appear to disregard this idea when it comes to religious schools’ hiring practices. This raises concerns about the consistency of their stance and whether they are applying the same standards to themselves.

    Third, while the unions bemoan discrimination implicit (they say) in hiring based on faith, by limiting faith-based schools’ hiring autonomy, they may discriminate against religious individuals who want to work in environments aligned with their beliefs, thus contradicting their own principles of non-discrimination.

    Join Mailing List

    And finally, there is the question of diversity – of thought and choice! Religious schools provide an option for parents who seek an education in line with their faith. Limiting their ability to hire staff who share their beliefs homogenises the educational landscape and limits diversity of educational options, which is contrary to the principles of a free and open society.

    Let’s call it what it is: the trade union movement’s call to prevent faith-based hiring in religious schools is at best the “politics of envy”, and at worst an unprincipled and hypocritical attack on Christianity. Let’s see if state and federal governments have the courage and integrity to resist this push.

    Is “Freedom” a Non-Word?

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    2

    The past few years have prompted a more focused view upon the word Freedom and all that it entails. Covid lockdowns along with coercive directives to take a new and warp-speed developed vaccine to “save Grandma” have been at the core of it. 

    When I ran as a candidate in Australia’s federal election in 2022 for the United Australia Party, I was one of four freedom candidates vying in my electorate of Lilley. One day on pre-poll, I approached a journalist from one of our major newspapers to ask why we were being ignored by the press, and the public not afforded the opportunity to hear what we had to say. His response was to cast his arm widely over the throng of people lining up on a very wet and wild day to say that we were irrelevant, and that what all those people out there were interested in was only “red” and “blue.” 

    We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth. 

    After explaining to him why I was standing up for our freedoms and challenged him to tell me why the people didn’t have the right to hear our messages, he told me: “Freedom is a non-word.”

    Naturally I disagreed, and the historian in me tried to appeal to his better judgement, given that his own career reflected the freedoms available to him to pursue a path to write and communicate his thoughts and ideas. 

    If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans, which was created to ensure the people had a voice and for the three levels of government to remain separate. 

    Imagine telling Socrates, the man who questioned everything and who encouraged others to do the same, that the word Freedom meant nothing at all? I doubt he would have needed hemlock to see his last day – the shock would have taken him out.  

    Almost four years have gone by since our world changed, and many people have forgotten about the egregious rules and punishments that were handed down from on high. They have proceeded to carry on with their lives, tut-tutting those of us who remind them of just what the government overlords did. 

    If Freedom was indeed a non-word, we wouldn’t be beneficiaries of the ancient Greeks’ idea of democracy, nor of the political system we inherited from the Romans

    Australians are by nature laid back. Sadly, that proved more true than many of us thought possible when the majority knelt before the altar of the Leviathan. 

    The future may look grim as we watch our inherent rights taken away from us, but I continue to look to the wisdom and foresight of the ancients as they navigated their own way through the quagmire of tyranny and oppression. We need to look to the innovation, strength, resilience, valour and honour of past heroes and heroic deeds if we are to reclaim our own worth. 

    Join Mailing List

    Because history does matter. And so does freedom.

    When the Gauls razed Rome to the ground in 390 BC, the general, Camillus, had to restore faith in the soldiers and the people to continue to defend and believe in their own freedoms. Many wanted to leave the ruins and rubble of their beloved Rome, but Camillus would have none of that, stating:

    “Must it be seen that Gauls could tumble Rome to the ground, while Romans are too weak to lift her up again?”

    It is my hope that one day soon our nation will wise up enough to do the same heavy lifting which is required to reclaim what is rightfully ours, and what is absolutely a word unto itself – Freedom.

    Don’t Pay the Pied Piper

    By
    James Hol
    -
    2

    More than anything, government is incompetent. It is staffed by people who, by and large, have been or would be unsuccessful in the private sector – whether the receptionist at your local motor registration office or the Prime Minister of Australia.

    Ultimately, we are aware of this. However, thanks in part to television programs such as The West Wing and House of Cards, we simultaneously believe the government is comprised of savant-level masters of psychoanalysis and manipulation.

    THE MARKETPLACE OF GOVERNMENT

    Perhaps one of the biggest tactical failings of libertarians and anarchists is the tendency to view the government as one cohesive and comprehensive entity. While it is true that most Western governments are behemoths, they are not homogenous. Rather, they are comprised of a number of disparate departments competing for their slice of tax revenue. 

    Good leaders should be able to admit their faults and avoid acting on emotion

    Both libertarians and authoritarians like to think that government departments work in tandem, sharing relevant information and working together to overcome an obstacle or bring down the ‘bad guy’.

    While they do undoubtedly work together at times, we should all be very hesitant to assume that is typical. Often, it is in the interests of the self-serving bureaucrats who lead various government departments to work against other departments. 

    What is better for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) than to prove the incompetence of the Department of Home Affairs? If you were a self-serving bureaucrat at DFAT, you could leverage that to demand more scope, which means more funding, a bigger empire, and perhaps more money in your pocket.

    INCOMPETENCE BEFORE CONSPIRACY

    Whenever we are presented with government inconsistencies, we should always consider incompetence before conspiracy. That is not to say that government conspiracies do not exist, but the level of expertise required to pull off many of the conspiracies posited is something that is simply not possible for the incompetent people who have comprised our governments for many decades.

    When attempting to determine the likelihood of a conspiracy theory being true, it is always worth examining:

    1. The number of co-conspirators required.
    2. The profit or benefit for the conspirators.
    3. The use of unfalsifiable statements and arguments.
    4. The deliberate misinterpretation of events.
    5. The excessive use of baseless arguments.
    6. The number of assumptions required.
    7. The false messiah.

    It is true that most Western governments are behemoths, they are not homogenous. 

    THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I 

    Even when we look at recent Covid tyranny, the most likely culprit is old-fashioned pride. While homegrown tyrants like Dan Andrews and Mark McGowan do not deserve to ride off into the sunset of retirement without facing the accountability of the people, that does not mean they were motivated by a global conspiracy to imprison their own constituents and usher in a social-credit-style system at the behest of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Occam’s razor dictates that their real fault was the inability to detach their own pride and ego from the policy they prescribed. We all find it difficult to reverse our instinctive position and admit that we were wrong. 

    This does not excuse tyranny; good leaders should be able to admit their faults and avoid acting on emotion, but it is important we recognise the banal origins of tyrannical behaviour. We are all capable of extreme tyranny.

    THE RABBIT HOLE

    All this is to say that there are some conspiracy theories out there that are ridiculous, yet refuse to die. Flat earth, reptilians, QAnon and fake moon landings are just a few that immediately come to mind. These theories are not only completely ridiculous, but dangerous. They serve to ideologically neutralise those who believe them: instead of directing their investigation towards actual, observable corrupt government and corporate institutions, they are too busy chasing shadows, fighting imaginary adversaries and worshiping false messiahs.

    Join Mailing List

    What have any of these conspiracy theorists actually accomplished? Have they created a thinktank that has shaped public policy? Have they run a successful candidate? Have they meaningfully gained influence and shaped culture? Have they captured a single reptilian? Have they found real evidence demonstrating the earth is flat? Have they proven anything? All they have achieved is increased sales of their “natural remedies” they advertise.

    Julian Assange and Edward Snowden showcased actual government corruption and exposed real conspiracies in their entirety. Meanwhile, when it comes to grifters like Ricardo Bossi or Q, the revelation is always “just around the corner”.

    Challenging narratives and thinking critically isn’t just about calling out corporatist media propaganda and government corruption, but also the grifters within our own movements.

    Curse of The Planner

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    1

    In her excellent book The Siberian Curse, British-American author Fiona Hill describes how the settlement of Siberia in the twentieth century and the mass movement of people and industry into this vast region by central planners lie at the root of many of Russia’s contemporary problems.

    Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.

    Examples abound around the world, but allow me to cite a local one.

    Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes. 

    A number of years ago, I bought a block of land on a very busy main road in one of Australia’s capital cities.  I submitted plans to the local council to build 12 semi-detached home units on the land and, as the zoning allowed for such a development, I didn’t expect any problems. That was of course until I came up against the Council Town Planner who said he’d recommend the development be approved “subject to the provision of noise attenuation devices” across the front of the property (noise attenuation is a fancy name for sound-proofing).  I tried to point out that there were thousands of kilometres of main roads with many thousands of dwellings fronting these main roads and it all seemed to work quite well without ‘sound attenuation’. I also told him that the project was actually geared towards older people, many of whom prefer the noise of traffic and pedestrians chatting as they said it made them feel safer than in some quiet back street or cul-de-sac.  But he was having none of it. He wanted his noise attenuation devices.  

    Naturally, I tried the commercial argument that people who didn’t like noise wouldn’t buy into the project and that the market would sort it out.  But for reasons known only to town planners but obscure to common sense, he rejected all my pleas, and I had an acoustic engineer design a front fence to assist with noise attenuation.  But no sooner had I finished the job than the Royal Society for the Deaf bought all the units – every single one of them.  I showed the planner the contract and he couldn’t even see the funny side of it. 

    Ludwig von Mises, one of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the 20th century, observed:

    Ludwig von Mises

    ‘The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans.  Planners aim at one thing only:  the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of their own plans.’

    National, State and Local government planners now infiltrate our lives at every turn. 

    Take the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), for example, the nation’s main economic planner.

    The RBA has over 1,500 staff and as well as its headquarters in Sydney, has offices in London, New York and Beijing. 

    The RBA basically has one main task – to control inflation. As we know, inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods and services. When governments contribute to this by running deficits, the RBA is there to put up interest rates and make the government feel the pain of their spending. In recent years, however, the RBA did not do this. In fact, in spite of record deficit-spending, former RBA Governor Philip Lowe said in 2021 the bank would be keeping interest rates low until at least 2024! 

    Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.

    Since then it has raised interest rates 14 times in an attempt to bring inflation under control, in effect shifting the inflation burden to consumers – particularly low-income consumers – through price rises. 

    One can also trace the current housing affordability crisis back to the RBA when it similarly refused to admit it made a mistake with its submission to the 2003 Productivity Commission Inquiry into First Home Ownership. The Bank’s focus on demand stimulators (capital gains tax, negative gearing, low interest rates, etc. – all Federal matters) and not supply factors had a huge influence in shaping the Productivity Commission’s findings. 

    Join Mailing List

    As we now know, the RBA overlooked the real source of the affordability problem – the unwillingness by State governments to release more land for new housing and urban planners’ obsession with urban densification, an idea that has failed all over the world. Whether it’s traffic congestion, air pollution, the destruction of bio-diversity or the unsustainable pressure on electricity, water, sewage, or stormwater infrastructure, urban densification has been a disaster. Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes. 

    As von Mises observed, the step between planner and dictator is not as big as some might think. When their plans are rejected, planners become indignant, and instead of adjusting their plans to suit the people who have rejected their ideas, they seek ways to enforce their will on the people. The inner authoritarian is revealed.

    China’s Dystopia II: The Digital Panopticon

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

    During my recent one-month stay in China’s bustling metropolises, the omnipresence of technology, particularly WeChat (a “Super App” Elon Musk wants X to be for the West), was starkly evident. QR codes adorned nearly every surface, from restaurant menus to market stalls, making WeChat an indispensable part of daily life. The ‘everything app’ seamlessly integrates functions akin to WhatsApp, Facebook, eBay, Uber and many others into one platform. 

    The convenience it offers is undeniable: messaging, social networking, making payments, ordering food and hailing rides are all accomplished with a few taps on a smartphone. However, beneath this veneer of ultra-convenience lies a more ominous reality.

    The Illusion of Convenience Over Privacy

    In Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, a superficially perfect society masks deep underlying issues. This theme resonates profoundly with my experience in China. On the surface, life is streamlined and digitised. In cities like Shanghai, cash is almost obsolete (I used no cash at all for the one-month trip), and every need or whim is catered to with astonishing efficiency, with technology not just an enabler but a dominant force shaping society. Yet, this convenience comes at a steep cost – privacy is virtually non-existent.

     The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens.

    Surveillance: Beyond the Physical Realm

    The extensive surveillance network I described in “China’s Dystopia I: Security to Slavery” is not limited to physical spaces. Every transaction, interaction or movement facilitated by WeChat and other digital platforms is tracked, recorded, and scrutinised whenever the government deems necessary. The app, while a marvel of modern technology, doubles as a tool for surveillance, with the Chinese government having unfettered access to the data collected.

    Digital Dystopia: A Double-Edged Sword

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience. On the other, it represents a dystopian reality where personal details, preferences, and even thoughts are no longer private. Every digital footprint is monitored, contributing to a profile that the government can access and analyse at will. The notion of ”Big Brother” in George Orwell’s “1984” finds a parallel here, though it is perhaps more aptly described by Huxley’s vision where citizens are placated with pleasures and conveniences, unaware of or indifferent to the loss of their freedoms.

    The Perils of a Cashless Society and Social Credit

    The move towards a cashless society in China brings its own set of risks. The convenience of digital transactions allows the government to track and control the financial activities of its citizens. Coupled with the social credit system, this creates a scenario where individuals can be rewarded or punished not just for their actions, but also for their associations.

    This system has become a tool for cracking down on dissent. Individuals or groups who interact with or support entities disfavoured by the government can find themselves facing financial restrictions or worse. Being locked out of WeChat, for example, effectively prevents participation in daily life. 

    This level of control over personal and financial interactions adds another layer to the surveillance state, where not just actions, but also associations, are monitored and controlled.

    This digital ecosystem, on one hand, epitomises technological advancement and consumer convenience.

    Rethinking Freedom in a Digitally Connected World

    As we progress further into the digital era, the Chinese model serves as a crucial case study for the rest of the world. It poses a fundamental question: what is the true cost of convenience? In a society where every digital interaction is monitored, can freedom truly exist? The allure of a frictionless, digital life is powerful, but it should not blind us to the importance of safeguarding our privacy and freedom.

    Join Mailing List

    As Australia observes the unfolding digital dystopia in China, it becomes imperative to reflect upon our own relationship with technology and surveillance. While enjoying a more open and democratic society, Australia is not immune to the risks posed by the unchecked expansion of surveillance technologies. The use of such technologies for contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic signalled clear privacy erosion and government overreach. 

    As Australia strides forward in its technological journey, it must tread cautiously to avoid the pitfalls seen in China. As Huxley’s “Brave New World” warns, a society enamoured with comfort and entertainment may be blind to the erosion of its essential liberties. The challenge for us is to ensure that technological advancements serve humanity, not government.

    The Lure of Government Benevolence

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    3

    Why is it that in many countries, including Australia, governments consistently spend more than they collect in taxes, thus increasing the national debt? 

    Most governments understand that budgets should be balanced. They have seen what happens in countries that accumulate too much debt and cannot service it. And yet, the debt keeps growing. 

    The explanation is rather uncomfortable for many of us. It is, broadly speaking, our own fault. We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.

    There was a time when we largely provided for ourselves. Prior to 1909, for example, there was no age pension; everyone was expected to save for their retirement, directly or via a mutual society. 

    The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful.

    Similarly, prior to 1910 there was no disability support pension. Privately funded charities and philanthropic organisations provided assistance for the disabled. 

    It was the same with health care; Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, did not exist until 1976. 

    University fees were a private cost until 1974. There were many scholarships on offer but those who failed to obtain one and whose family was unable to pay the fees would often delay or forego tertiary studies. 

    For women returning to work, childcare was typically provided by families, friends and neighbours, or by community organisations such as churches. Government subsidised childcare only began in 2000. 

    Most people would probably be disinclined to wind back the clock. And yet, most people also believe that they already pay too much tax and do not wish to pay more. And therein lies the problem. 

    In the five years in which I was a senator, I wrote hundreds of articles for newspapers and magazines. The subject on which I received the most hostile feedback was the suggestion that eligibility for pensions should take into account all assets, including the family home. It was inequitable, I argued, that the taxes of those who could not even afford to buy a home were funding the pensions of those living in multi-million-dollar houses. 

    I lost count of the number of people who claimed they were entitled to a pension because they had paid taxes during their working life. Many also argued that age pensions were justified because there were parliamentary pensions (although these were abolished in 2004). 

    It made me realise that Australians want to have their cake and to eat it too. That is, they want the government to pay for all sorts of services, but do not associate this with taxes. Money from the government is somehow different.  

    We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.

    The outcome is that governments implement generous schemes such as the NDIS, age and disability pensions, Medicare, childcare subsidies and HECS, generally to public acclaim, without mentioning where the money is to come from. There are far more votes in spending money than collecting it. 

    This presents a problem for libertarians, who advocate low taxes and small government. How can they persuade Australians that the hugely expensive government-run schemes they consider to be a right are either not necessary or could be replaced by something that is cheaper and more effective, if approached differently. 

    This same problem is now facing Argentina’s new president, Javier Milei. Although Argentinians elected him with his libertarian agenda, he did not receive a majority of votes and his party does not have a majority in parliament. Argentinians, like Australians, have been told for decades that the government will provide. Like most Australians, most are yet to accept that their expectations are unrealistic. 

    Join Mailing List

    Unless voters can be persuaded that there is no such thing as free government money, and that personal responsibility yields better results at lower cost, there is little chance governments will implement policies based on that. Even in Argentina, which has defaulted on its national debt no less than eight times, the appetite for economic reality is low. Milei will require the wisdom of Solomon to implement his policies. 

    We must hope that he succeeds. The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful. 

    1...789...16Page 8 of 16
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv