United States

Home United States

Can libertarianism become a brand in Australia?

Dean Russell, a staff member at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), was the first to propose that America’s classical liberals and individualists rebrand themselves as “libertarians.” In an article published by FEE in 1955, Russell wrote: “Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our use the good and honourable word ‘libertarian.’” 

That good and honourable term was actually coined, or at least first used in print, by William Belsham in 1789. At that time, and until its political repurposing by Russell, it denoted a distinct philosophical school in the context of debates about free will. The opponents of philosophical libertarians then were necessitarians.

The context for Russell’s proposal was the perversion of the term “liberal” in the American political context at the hands of big government New Deal interventionists. This development led to the rather awkward, and unusual, situation of political opponents using exactly the same language to define themselves. The libertarian rebrand was, if nothing else, an admission of defeat: the term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals who identified with the tradition of nineteenth century liberalism and the principles of the American revolution. Yet, it proved to be wildly successful and is now in wide usage by America’s liberty lovers in all their diversity and eccentricity. Indeed, there now exists a robust “libertarian” ecosystem in America, replete with think tanks, academics, journalists, magazines, personalities, the odd celebrity and a political party to boot.

The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia

However, this linguistic turn, which proved so successful in the American context, has struggled to find relevance and application in other contexts like Australia. Here, “liberal” has stubbornly retained its nineteenth century brand connotations, if not its genuine ideological content. Thanks to the dominance of the Liberal Party as the right-hand pole in Australia’s bipolar political contest, the term “liberal” continues to evoke in the minds of many political consumers something right of centre, as amorphous, incoherent and ill-defined as that may be. This brand phenomenon has served as a bulwark against the kind of leftward semantic evolution that the term “liberal” underwent in early twentieth century America. 

Moreover, the most ambitious among those who now embrace the term “conservative” to describe their political identity still find the Liberal Party of Australia to be the most conducive vehicle for political influence, notwithstanding pressures and temptations from Australia’s motley collection of right-wing populist minor parties. As such, Australia’s Liberal Party boasts an influential conservative wing, described routinely in left-friendly media outlets as the “hard right” or “far right.” This association of the term “conservative” with “liberal,” let alone “hard right” with “liberal,” is an association that simply does not exist in the American political market. It is a peculiar distinctive of the Australian political landscape, a quirk, as it were. It does, however, provide yet further explanation for why the term “liberal” has resisted its American descent into the semantics of liberal progressivism, at least in the minds of the public, and through them the political vernacular of Australia 

The term “liberal” had been irredeemably corrupted in the eyes of American liberals

The fact that Australia’s most successful libertarian party was founded under the name Liberal Democrats in 2001 and only changed its name to the Libertarian party in 2023 speaks volumes about the fortunes of the term “liberal” in Australia (there were legal reasons to change the name). It speaks, on the one hand, to the classical liberal connotations of the term in Australia of 2001, the golden age of Howard’s Broad Church, with its putative synthesis of Millian liberalism and Burkean conservativism. Its name change, on the other hand, in an era in which so-called “moderate” liberals in the Liberal Party stand for woke-lite social policy and a slightly less interventionist economic policy than the Australian Labor Party, signals the final severance of the conjunction “classical” and “liberal in the Australian context, more than 200 years after it arrived in the Australian continent with European settlement, and 68 years after a libertarian rebrand in America. 

The Liberal Party is now constituted by incompatible liberal progressives and conservatives, neither of whom show any real interest in advancing the classical liberal cause. While an uneasy truce prevails following the sectarian civil war of the immediate past, they now inhabit a rather unhappy marriage of convenience. They sleep in separate bedrooms, but stay together for the sake of the kids, in this case the chance at electoral success. Meanwhile, Australia’s classical liberals have deserted the Liberal Party and thrown in their lot with Australia’s radical liberals to embrace, albeit with some consternation and anxiety, the label “libertarian.”

The challenge confronting Australia’s nascent libertarian movement, now that it has finally parted ways with the term “liberal,” is to galvanise Australia’s small but passionate band of liberty lovers around a term that is foreign to the Australian political lexicon. More challenging still, there is the task of cultivating a libertarian constituency that prizes and prioritises individual freedom, property rights, unhampered markets, limited government and peaceful international relations in a country whose founding mythos and national identity are not centred around the concept of liberty, as they are in America. The truth is that the liberalism rebranded libertarianism in America, and only belatedly in Australia, are different species of the genus “liberalism,” each with their own distinct origins, political histories and intellectual development. All political ideologies face a temptation in the Australian context to simply ape and regurgitate the loud, exciting and flamboyant political ideas and innovations that inevitably flow downstream from America to Australia. This is a particular temptation for Australia’s right-wing heirs of the liberal tradition who have recently chosen to embrace the language of the much more highly developed and institutionalised ecosystem in America. If libertarianism is to have any future at all in Australia, it will need to take inspiration from the best that American libertarianism has to offer and adapt, refine and develop it for the unique socio-political environment of Australia. 

Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?

Does Australia need a Bill of Rights? After all, Australia is, it surprises many to learn, the only Western democracy with neither a constitutional nor legislated Bill of Rights. Various attempts over the years to legislate one have failed.

The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992, when the High Court ruled that the Constitution carried an implied right to free speech — in political matters only. As the Chief Justice observed:

To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments.   

If that sounds like a reach, later High Court rulings found that it was. When a public servant who had been sacked for criticising the government on Twitter appealed the sacking on the grounds of such an implied right to political speech, she lost. The court ruled that there is no personal right to free speech, but a restriction on legislative power, which “extends only so far as is necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution”.

The Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act”

If anyone still doubted that Australians’ basic rights are not protected from government overreach, the last five years should have put a brutal end to such illusions.

But Canada has a Bill of Rights, and so does New Zealand, and yet their governments were no less draconian in crushing basic rights, from informed consent, to free assembly, to free speech.

So it looks like a Bill of Rights is worth precisely shit when the government boot comes down.

Or is it?

For all its faults, the United States’ Bill of Rights is holding up reasonably well against sustained assault by the state and its corporate attack dogs.

The difference lies in how a Bill of Rights is framed: to whit, which view of freedom is at its heart.

There are, in essence, two basic conceptual frameworks of freedom, with very different outcomes. These are positive liberty and negative liberty. At first blush, “positive liberty” may seem like the preferred option. It’s “positive”, after all!

In fact, positive liberty is the stomping ground of collectivist ideologies which are almost invariably associated with the worst shackles placed on individual freedom. That’s because positive liberty is better understood as “freedom to”.

That is, the freedom to act only within the constraints set down by law and society. Anti-discrimination laws are an example of positive freedom: citizens are free to act only within the bounds established by the laws enacted by the state. You are free to say only this and not that. You are only as free as the state decides to let you be. You can choose any colour, so long as it’s black.

Negative liberty is very different. Negative liberty is the “freedom from”. Freedom from constraint. Negative liberty establishes what citizens can tell the state it is not allowed to do. It is the type of freedom associated with classical liberalism and libertarianism. The US First Amendment is a negative liberty: Congress shall make no law… The Second Amendment is in the same vein: the peoples’ right shall not be infringed.

The other great difference between the USA’s, and NZ’s and Canada’s, Bills of Rights is that the United States’ is Constitutional; NZ’s and Canada’s are legislative.

A Constitutional law is the absolute bedrock law of the land. No matter what the government of the day may legislate, it must conform to the Constitution.

Legislation can be overturned by a simple vote in parliament. Or, like NZ’s, it can be restricted such that it cannot override any other legislation. Unlike the US Supreme Court, a NZ court cannot strike down or override any act of parliament with reference to the Bill of Rights. Which makes it a moot point as to why it exists at all.

The only way to get a Constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia would be by referendum. Good luck with that. The Australian Constitution was framed such that amending it is extremely difficult: a proposed amendment must secure not only a national majority of voters, but a majority of voters in a majority of states as well. Australians have, by and large, chosen to validate that high hurdle: of 45 referendums since Federation, only eight have ever been passed.

No referendum has ever passed without bipartisan support (and few indeed of those that had bipartisan support). Given that a legislated Bill of Rights has never made it past parliament, the chances of it passing referendum seem almost nil.

A major reason that a Bill of Rights has never passed parliament, let alone been proposed at referendum, is the suspicion voiced by former prime minister John Howard that such a Bill would transfer power from elected representatives to unelected judges and bureaucrats. It’s not hard to see the wisdom of his observation: consider, after all, just how much power health bureaucrats seized during the pandemic.

The closest Australia ever got to a Constitutional free speech right was in 1992

Even the High Court’s “implied right to free speech” decision could be seen as just the sort of judicial overreach Howard warns against. As the US Supreme Court did in 1973 with Roe vs. Wade, the Australian High Court took it on itself to invent a potentially far-reaching decision out of Constitutional thin air. More recent High Court decisions, which affectively affirm the role of magic — a supposed Aboriginal “spiritual connection to the land” — in law show that such unelected judges are the last people to whom we should trust our rights.

As it happens, the Australian government is, very quietly, once again resurrecting the idea of a legislated “Human Rights Act” — and it’s even worse than you might think. 

As should surprise no-one, given its origin in a left-wing government, it’s mired, waist-deep, in a mindset of positive liberty. That is, it’s all about what the state will allow Australians to do — not what Australians can tell the state what it cannot do.

For instance, freedom of religious belief is only allowed at the discretion of a judge. A judge can restrict religious freedom any time he or she considers it “reasonable” and “justified”. Religious freedom may be restricted in order to “protect public safety, order, health, morals or the rights of ­others”.

Who wants to take bets on how politically-appointed judges will interpret that one?

Freedom of speech gets even shorter shrift. Speech may be restricted — again, at a judge’s discretion — “in order to respect the rights and reputations of others or to protect national security, public order or public heath”. Ask Zoe Buhler, the Victorian mum arrested, pregnant, in her pyjamas, and crying, in front of her children, simply for posting the details of an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook, how that one’s likely to play out.

Perhaps the most alarming aspects of the proposed Human Rights Act is that it would include a mechanism that would enable everyone to sue for monetary compensation whenever they decided that their rights had been breached. Again, we only need to look at how aggrieved activists, most notably the “rainbow” lobby, have weaponised the existing “human rights” infrastructure to threaten critics and impose a chilly pall of silence on matters of essential public debate.

While it may be bad enough that Australia lacks any formal Bill of Rights, the threat of an ill-intentioned, badly framed one is infinitely worse.

It all comes down, in the end, to what Tony Abbott so famously asked during Australia’s last referendum campaign: do you really trust politicians?

Anyone who still does, clearly spent the last five years either in a deep coma, or developing a slavish taste for boot leather.

The Art of the Deal

US Libertarians met for their National Convention in Washington DC late last month, where they heard from a range of speakers and selected their presidential candidate. However, this was unlike any other Libertarian National Convention – in fact, it was unlike any prior political party convention in US history.

MAKE AMERICA LIBERTARIAN AGAIN

The headline speaker for the Libertarian National Convention was the 45th President of the United States and presumptive Republican nominee for the 2024 Presidential Election, Donald Trump. Never before in US history has a rival political candidate addressed a political party convention.

While much of the Trump-hating media described the speech as being met with a chorus of booing and heckling, that was not entirely accurate. While Trump certainly faced one of his most hostile crowds, there were several points where he managed to draw cheers from the libertarians. One of those moments probably marks the biggest political win for libertarians in history.

US Libertarians have their biggest opportunity to meaningfully influence the political landscape, ironically by running fewer candidates.

THE THREE PERCENT

During his speech, Trump gave Libertarians an ultimatum: continue wining a meaningless three percent of the vote or join me and win together. Along with promising to free Ross Ulbricht, the founder and operator of Silk Road, Trump pledged to appoint libertarians to his cabinet and senior positions of government. And while there are genuine questions regarding the trustworthiness of Trump’s word, he is absolutely right.

The Libertarian Party, particularly within the US electoral system, will never win a single meaningful election. In over 20 years, the Libertarians have only won one of the possible 8,161 seats available in any federal, state or territorial congress. Having libertarians in Trump’s cabinet and senior levels of government would be a far more politically successful outcome for Libertarians than anything the Party has ever been able to achieve in its 53-year history.

The “The Party of Principle” needs to consider whether it is time to start putting principles over partisanship and accept that sometimes supporting someone else is the greatest force for liberty.

Trump pledged to appoint libertarians to his cabinet and senior positions of government.

THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE

Unfortunately, most of those in the room that day missed the boat, choosing to boo the former President for no other reason than that he is a former President and has an “R” next to his name. While I understand being derisive when non-libertarian policies are advocated at a Libertarian Convention, booing Trump for merely entering the room and approaching the podium is simply childish. Never have I been more embarrassed to be a libertarian.

Instead of embracing Trump’s offer, the Libertarians decided to nominate Chase Oliver: someone who publicly gushed over his favourite type of mask and virtue-signalled about how COVID-safe his family’s Thanksgiving dinner was. With a woke candidate, as well as Robert F. Kennedy Jr siphoning the protest vote, the Libertarian Party, faces an existential crisis. When Trump asked whether Libertarians would continue to be happy with three percent of the vote, he was being generous: the Libertarian Party will be lucky to achieve even one percent of the vote in this presidential race.

TAKING THE L

US Libertarians have their biggest opportunity to meaningfully influence the political landscape, ironically by running fewer candidates. Hopefully those within the Libertarian Party – and the “small-L” libertarians – can put their pride aside and see where this opportunity truly lies: alliances and influence.


Libertarians (both big and small-L) need to decide what matters more to them: clinging on to a meaningless three percent of the presidential vote (if they’re lucky) or having libertarians in the White House and senior government positions. It seems like an obvious choice to me.

Raw Deal

A local rag (The Geelong Advertiser) reported* last month that some sort of strange secretive trade was taking place in the quiet backstreets of affluent Highton. The article heavily implied that this was an illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria.

I found two things rather confronting about this story. 

First, it seemed the main concern of the other residents of this quiet cul-de-sac was that once a fortnight their street attracted some extra traffic. “It was really invasive”, claimed a local resident. 

The article explained that ‘customers’ were turning up to this particular house brandishing empty white buckets, then returning to their cars with a full one. 

Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock.

Second, this saga represents yet another example of Australians loving a rule and hating a rule breaker – a sad inversion of how we are traditionally portrayed. We saw the same attitude during Covid when people dobbed in neighbours who held gatherings at their houses during lockdowns. 

It exposes a distinctly ugly side to the modern suburban Australian – spying on their neighbours and obsessed with everyone’s business but their own. It was apparently too much to ask of a suburban neighbourhood to ignore a few extra cars on their street every second Tuesday evening. 

I don’t believe it has anything to do with health and safety. It’s a twisted manifestation of tall poppy syndrome where Australians seem to believe we should all suffer together under the tyranny of useless laws and regulations. 

The basis for why raw milk is banned in Victoria (until 2015 it could be sold as ‘bath milk’) is a tall tale, based largely on hearsay and a coroner’s report drawing a (weak) link between a child’s death and possible raw milk consumption. Put it this way: the same health department that shut down the Dandenong I Cook Foods business made the decision.    

Illegal distribution of ‘raw’ (unpasteurized) milk – a product that is banned for human consumption in Australia and banned entirely for sale in Victoria

Australian State and Federal health departments are becoming a laughing stock. Our stance on vape products is infamous internationally for how not to regulate them, alternative treatments for Covid 19 were needlessly banned in favour of novel vaccines (such as the recently discontinued AstraZeneca vaccine). Worse, the relentless pursuit by APHRA of renegade doctors who break rank and provide medical advice to the contrary of the national standard drives their valuable advice and expertise underground.  

And so it is with raw milk, where in New Zealand, England, and across much of the USA and Europe, consumers can access it under the protections of a strong regulatory environment. In Australia, consumers discreetly drive to suburban distribution points at night and try not to disturb the nosy neighbours while lugging buckets back to their cars.   

“In general, safety takes priority over freedom of choice” was the catch cry of a Dairy Food safety regulator in response to the Geelong incident, summing up everything wrong with the attitude of the public health system. 

Australians love rules, and health departments love making them. Thus, those wishing to exercise their freedom to choose end up needlessly on the wrong side of both the law and public opinion. At least everyone else can sleep easy at night, lest they be disturbed by some extra cars on their street!
*https://www.melissa-payne.ca/trending/8ad51675cd36/

A Digital Dark Age

Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly,
‘Tis the prettiest little parlour, that ever you did spy,
Oh no, no! then said the fly, to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up to your winding stair, 

Can ne’er come down again.

Mary Howitt’s old poem could well be describing another web, the one that ensnares us all – the world-wide-web.

Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions. It is because of this web, that we are now in this predicament. 

We have all been caught, and to quote Mary Howitt, we’re ‘ne’er coming down again’.

In January 2023, the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, announced that the Albanese Government would introduce new laws to provide the media regulator – the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) – with ‘new powers to combat online misinformation and disinformation’.

The proposed new bill, the Communication Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill, would:

The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

– Enable ACMA to gather information from global tech companies and require them to keep certain records about matters regarding misinformation and disinformation and provide those records to ACMA.

– Enable ACMA to request industry to develop, vary and/or register a code of practice covering measures to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, which ACMA could then register and enforce.

– Allow ACMA to create and enforce an industry standard, should a code of practice be deemed ineffective in combatting misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms

– Empower ACMA to regulate electoral and referendum content, but NOT the power to regulate political parties with regard to misleading and/or deceptive conduct.

– Empower the Minister to direct ACMA to conduct investigations into any matter regarding misinformation or disinformation and empower the Minister to set the terms of reference for any such investigation.

The Bill also provides for significant penalties for digital platforms or individuals that do not comply with the Bill and/or the new codes and standards the Bill creates. Penalties include:

– Imprisonment of up to 12 months for providing false or misleading information to ACMA.

– Non-attendance at an ACMA investigation hearing of up to 33 penalty units ($9,000) for each day of non-attendance.

– Non-compliance with a registered code of up to 10,000 penalty units ($2.75 mill) or 2% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

– Non-compliance with an industry standard of up to 25,000 penalty units ($6.88 mill) or 5% of global turnover (whatever is greater).

Other penalties may also apply. 

The government, of course, will not be subject to any of these new laws. It has exempted itself.

Every aspect of our lives is connected to this web – most notably our source of nearly all the information on which we base life’s decisions.

Ms Rowland said the government was committed to introducing legislation that would fine social media companies for allowing misinformation or disinformation to be broadcast on their platforms. 

Misinformation is defined as ‘false information that is spread due to ignorance, or by error or mistake, without the intent to deceive’. 

Disinformation is defined as ‘false information designed to deliberately mislead and influence public opinion or obscure the truth for malicious or deceptive purposes.’

“In the face of seriously harmful content that sows division, undermines support for pillars of our democracy, or disrupts public health responses, doing nothing is not an option.

“The proposal would empower the regulator to examine the systems and processes these tech giants already have in place, and develop standards should industry self-regulation measures prove insufficient in addressing the threat posed by misinformation and disinformation”.

Harsh words indeed.

In its submission to the draft bill, the Law Council of Australia warned that the proposal could have a ‘chilling effect on freedom of expression’ by allowing social media giants and the communications watchdog (ACMA) to decide what constitutes information, opinion and claims online.

And in case anyone is thinking this is solely a Labor Party contrivance, before the 2022 election the Morrison government pledged to, ‘… introduce stronger laws to combat harmful disinformation and misinformation online by giving the media regulator stronger information-gathering and enforcement powers’.

To cap it all off, waiting in the wings is ‘mal-information’, defined as ‘truth which is used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country’ and ‘information that stems from the truth, but is often portrayed in a way that misleads and/or causes potential harm.’

To invoke Climate Czar and former US Presidential candidate Al Gore, malinformation might be otherwise described as ‘an inconvenient truth’.

Tomorrow: part 2.

Pro-Natalist Policies – The Jury is Out

“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. 

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 Mask Is Off, Now

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?

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.

God and Government

“No gods, no masters” has been a popular anarchist phrase for over 500 years. Yet as society and culture becomes increasingly secular, authoritarianism has grown alongside it. The atheist utopia of a world dedicated to logic and reason seems further away now than it ever has been, despite more people choosing not to affiliate with religion.

STATE WORSHIP

Religion, in some form or another, has existed ever since humans developed consciousness. In fact, sacred texts like the Bible, Tanakh and Quran did not have a word or even a concept of religion in their original languages – nor did the people or cultures in which they were written. In other words, religion itself is so ingrained into the human experience that it precedes the concept of religion. The people and cultures of biblical times viewed religion as so quintessentially human that they saw no need to develop a distinction.

So is the modern rise of atheism the beginning of perhaps the most fundamental change in human nature?

The libertarian readership of Liberty Itch should have little problem acknowledging the danger of elevating government to the place of ultimate authority in Western society.

Modern atheists are not embracing the 15th-century anarchist phrase; they have simply replaced their god with something else – and something worse. Covid tyranny showcased many things, perhaps most alarmingly the willingness of so many to so readily worship at the altar of the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient state. The government served as the Father; the “all-knowing” bureaucrat as the Son; and The Science™ as the Spirit.

And for atheists who manage to escape the religion of government, they simply find another god: money, consumerism and hedonism being some of the more popular ones.

MYTH AND LEGEND

Atheists are quick to point out the ridiculousness of many religious truth claims. Until very recently I would have considered myself one of these atheists. However, they completely miss the point. Debating whether the universe was truly created in six days or whether the Great Flood was all that great is the most uninspired, surface-level analysis of religion. Yet every discussion about religion seems to lead to a boring dissection of the truthfulness of highly symbolic stories written in a unique literary style many thousands of years ago.

The Bible, and other similar sacred texts, is not a dispassionate recount of historical events, but a book that delicately interweaves prose and poetry, narrative and direct address, and history and myth. It is also important that we do not regard “myth” as merely synonymous with untruth. A myth can be a profoundly true statement which speaks to universal aspects of life and reality: its meaning rises above time and space. Art, film and music can all provide transcendent meaning and truth to our understanding of the human experience as well as our own lives, whether or not the subject matter is objectively true. Religion is no exception.

Religion, in some form or another, has existed ever since humans developed consciousness.

LIFE AND MEANING

If you have no authority higher than government, government becomes the greatest authority. The libertarian readership of Liberty Itch should have little problem acknowledging the danger of elevating government to the place of ultimate authority in Western society. Even the US Founding Fathers saw the need to mention that our rights are derived from God; and while not all libertarians agree with the divine origin of rights, we can all agree that they are inherent – they were not endowed merely by fiat of man.

But if religion has existed for as long as humanity, what is the significance of Christianity?

There is a reason Christianity is the most popular religion: no matter what degree of interpretation you choose, it will always provide meaning. Whether you choose to take a more literal interpretation or orient your life toward the symbolic meaning that can be extracted from biblical text, you will be an objectively better person and lead an objectively more meaningful life. While correlation is not necessarily causative, it is hard to ignore the ridiculous degeneracy of a modern society that actively rejects religion, particularly Christianity.

While deriving meaning from the extraordinary is not unique to Christianity, it is unique to traditional religion – rather than the modern idols we have put in its place. Worshipping the state, money, hedonistic impulses, vapid consumerist culture or any other modern idol will provide you with neither self-improvement nor meaning. Perhaps if I were writing this for an Eastern audience, I might urge readers to consider Hinduism or Buddhism; but it seems absurd to suggest that westerners overlook the religion that has been foundational to the very culture we live in.


While Easter may be wrapping up, it is not too late to pick up a Bible or visit your local church. It may very well be the most libertarian thing you can do.

Geopolitics and The Non-Aggression Principle

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.”

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.

Exciting times ahead for uranium mining in Western Australia

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. 

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.