How Sunk Cost Fallacy Drives Authoritarian Policies

31 July 2024

Sunk cost fallacy is the tendency of people to stick with a decision or course of action that isn’t having a positive result because the person has invested time, money and/or resources that cannot be recovered and do not want to feel that they have wasted them. In many cases, sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action.

Here are two real life examples of how people can be affected by sunk cost fallacy.

Example 1:

Amy buys a ticket to see a movie and goes into the cinema to watch it. After about 30 minutes she concludes the movie is not very good but watches it to the end because she doesn’t want to feel she has wasted her money on the ticket nor her time watching it.

Example 2:

Kiara has gambled away thousands of dollars hoping one day to win big. Kiara does not want to stop gambling because she thinks she will win big one day and doesn’t want to think her ‘investment’ was a waste. She continues to double down and gamble away even more money in the hope it will one day pay off.

What is authoritarian policy and what drives it?

Authoritarian public policy restricts the choices of individuals or violates recognised civil rights and liberties. It is typically driven either by a desire to control others or to solve a problem or perceived problem within society.

Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

It can be driven by malevolent forces, such as a group or individual wanting to increase their power or cause harm to a person or group they don’t like, or by benevolent forces wanting to solve a problem or make society a better place in the belief that the end justifies the means.

How is sunk cost fallacy relevant to authoritarian policies?

The imposition of any policy requires time, money and resources. Authoritarian policies also involve sacrificing rights and liberties, often even including those of the people supporting and perpetuating the policy.

Most people like to think they are decent and not causing harm to others and society. We each want to be the hero of our own story. Those who support and perpetuate authoritarian policies often have good intentions. But good intentions do not alter the harm they cause to individuals and society. To these people, any so called ‘sacrifices’ are a means to an end, and the erosion of civil liberties and human suffering are an investment. Any attempt to reverse such investment is considered an attempt to turn an investment into waste.

Some real-life examples of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

I will use two real life authoritarian policies as examples of sunk cost fallacy: the War on Drugs, and the Authoritarian Covid Response. Both came with significant social and economic costs, leading to major restrictions on individual freedom and causing significant suffering within society.

The War on Drugs:

The war on drugs has been waged for over half a century. Although there were laws that restricted and criminalised drugs in various countries, in the early 70s US President Richard Nixon found a way to criminalise groups that he did not like such as hippies and black people.

He knew that he couldn’t directly criminalise people for being hippies or black, but he also knew that drug use, in particular marijuana, was popular in both communities. From this, he enacted a policy in 1971 called the War on Drugs and created a government agency called the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) using the excuse of public safety.

And in a fashion typical of the US government, the policy began to be promoted to other countries, with many falling into line.

The War on Drugs has proven to be incredibly destructive, with billions spent on enforcement around the world. Arresting people and putting them in jail uses a lot of resources and costs taxpayers a lot of money.

The criminalisation of drug use has also had many negative social effects such as making criminals of those who were otherwise causing no harm to others, and being used an excuse to introduce policies such as civil asset forfeiture.

On top of this, the War on Drugs has been a failure: drugs have won the war. People still use drugs. Yet governments around the world remain determined to make the policy work. New excuses are offered to justify the policy, such as public health and the cost to taxpayers in countries with socialised healthcare. Governments convince themselves that the War on Drugs is necessary, and to end the war would turn the investment into a sunk cost.

Sunk cost fallacy can even drive people to double down on a bad decision or course of action.

Authoritarian Covid Response:

The authoritarian Covid response (ACR) is a set of government responses to the Covid-19 virus which originated in China in late 2019 and proceeded to spread throughout the world. Although some people such the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions can get very sick, most people have mild symptoms and many don’t even know they have it.

In reaction to the virus, governments threw out their prepared pandemic plans and implemented extreme restrictions on everyday life that severely curtailed civil liberties and derailed the lives of millions of people all over the world.

People were subjected to rules that were overly restrictive, made no scientific sense and were counterproductive. The rules were constantly changing, often confusing and practically impossible to follow even for those who wanted to follow them.

The first two weeks and maybe even the first two months could have been forgiven but once it become obvious the rules were excessive and needless, they continued with significant societal support. The perpetuation of the policy had significant social and economic costs, has permanently eroded civil liberties, and has permanently and negatively altered the trajectory of the lives of many people including myself.

Whenever the excessive nature of the ACR was mentioned, those who support it wouldn’t just disagree but would respond in a manner that can be best described as emotional and angry. I noticed many Gen Z peers to be very supportive of the ACR policy despite our age group disproportionately experiencing many of its negative effects.

Join Mailing List

The longer a person supported the ACR, the less likely they were to stop supporting it, with their support becoming more aggressive over time, even to the point of cutting off close friends and family. Given the extensive personal and societal ‘sacrifices’ created by ACR policies, many who supported the ACR came to view the ‘sacrifices’ caused by the policy to be an investment.

Ending the ACR policy would mean that the ‘sacrifices’ were a pointless sunk cost and a loss of their investment, and that they had needlessly harmed society. This desire to avoid losing out on their investment helped perpetuate the ACR policy and continue its existence.

The implications of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

Knowing that sunk cost fallacy drives authoritarian policy emphasises the importance of working to stop authoritarian policies before they even take hold. Once they do take hold, people become invested in their continuation which makes it more difficult to eliminate them.

Jess Colby

Jessica Colby is a young libertarian advocate who has been passionate about political issues from an early age. She became involved in the Libertarian Party shortly after turning 18 and is now Treasurer of the South Australian branch.

Can libertarianism become a brand in Australia?

Jonathan Cole

15 July 2024

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.”

Join Mailing List

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.

Jonathan Cole

Jonathan Cole is a libertarian political philosopher and co-host of The Political Animals podcast: “Two political philosophers, one a right-wing radical, the other a left-wing heretic, come together to discuss the social, political and cultural issues of our day.”

Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?

Lushington D Brady

10 July 2024

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.

Join Mailing List

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.

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

I grew up in a generational-Labor-voting family. I kept the faith long after the political left had abandoned it. In the last decade or two, I’ve voted at times for just about all of the major parties and quite a few of the minor ones.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

The Art of the Deal

James Hol

7 June 2024

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 45^th 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.

Join Mailing List

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.

James Hol

While always avidly following politics and culture, James Hol was not politically active until the overreaction to COVID. In a matter of months, James gained invaluable insight into all levels of government, being heavily involved in Federal, state and local election campaigns.

Raw Deal

Max Payne

14 May 2024

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.

Join Mailing List

“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/

Max Payne

Max Payne is the Australian Program Associate with Students For Liberty, a global non-profit that spreads the values of libertarianism on campus. He is also a twice former candidate with the Libertarian Party and maintains a keen interest in Austrian economics, classical music and organic gardening.

A Digital Dark Age

Bob Day

22 April 2024

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.

Join Mailing List

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.

Bob Day

Bob’s contribution to the Australian community has been reflected in a wide range of appointments including National President of the Housing Industry Association, Co-Founder and Inaugural President of Independent Contractors of Australia, Director of The Centre for Independent Studies, and Senator for South Australia.

Pro-Natalist Policies – The Jury is Out

Meaghan Whyte

19 April 2024

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

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

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

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

The world is experiencing a real baby bust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

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

Meaghan Whyte

Meaghan became a staunch anarcho-capitalist after a collection of life experiences that left her disabused of any vestige of goodwill towards the state and its attendant institutions. Notable experiences included university gender studies, and living under social democracy. Now, she writes to advocate for the abolition of the state.

The Mask Is Off, Now

Lushington D Brady

8 April 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what a pathetic, tawdry excuse it is.

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

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

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

Albo’s hypocrisy is just the start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

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

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

Lushington D Brady

Punk rock philosopher. Liberalist contrarian. Grumpy old bastard.

My vote may have changed, but those basic working-class values I grew up with never have.

God and Government

James Hol

1 April 2024

“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 15^th-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.

Join Mailing List

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.

James Hol

Exciting times ahead for uranium mining in Western Australia

Meaghan Whyte

22 March 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join Mailing List

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

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

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

Meaghan Whyte

Assange’s Last Appeal

Jaimie Stevenson

11 March 2024

Last week, Australian journalist Julian Assange’s legal team sought permission from the High Court of the United Kingdom to appeal his extradition to the United States, where he could potentially face severe penalties. This appeal represents Assange’s final opportunity to challenge his extradition within the UK’s legal system.

Assange has become a symbol of injustice, political persecution, and the fight for freedom of speech and press freedom. Behind the symbolic figure lies a human being languishing in the high-security prison.

The same week witnessed international outcry over the death of Alexei Navalny, who died in a Siberian prison. World leaders, including British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and U.S. President Joe Biden, condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin for Navalny’s imprisonment, a man they consider a journalist who spoke out against the Russian President. They asserted that he was murdered, although they had no evidence to support this claim.

The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case.

Assange has been indicted under the Espionage Act 1917, his alleged crime being publication of classified documents that exposed corruption, government misconduct, surveillance, and war crimes. The US government has focused on the publication of the documents, which it says exposed sources and personnel to danger. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures.

Supporters argue the documents were divulged by Chelsea Manning (who was convicted and then pardoned), and that Assange’s prosecution threatens freedom of the press. They contend that his actions as the founder of WikiLeaks were acts of journalism protected by free speech and the principles of press freedom. They insist he is being selectively targeted for political reasons rather than legitimate legal concerns, highlighting the discrepancy in treatment compared to other journalists and media organisations.

Granting leave to appeal would prolong Assange’s pre-trial detention, further deteriorating his health. Holding him in a maximum-security prison is normally reserved for those convicted of serious crimes, yet he has not been convicted of anything. There are no reasons why alternatives such as house arrest could not be employed.

Assange’s prosecution in the US raises concerns about government overreach, the chilling effect on free speech and journalism, and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. The High Court must carefully consider the potential human rights implications of extradition, including the risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Assange’s status as a non-U.S. citizen complicates matters, as he lacks the same legal standing to claim First Amendment protections in U.S. courts, despite the global implications of his case for press freedom and whistleblowing activities.

Both Republican and Democrat administrations have opted to use Assange as an example to deter other journalists from similar disclosures.

The prolonged pre-trial detention of Julian Assange while awaiting an appeal also poses concerns for the rule of law and due process. In contravention of the presumption of innocence, Assange’s extended confinement undermines fundamental legal principles, casting doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the legal proceedings against him.

The United States’ criticism of other countries for jailing journalists is deeply hypocritical in the context of Assange’s case. The U.S. government’s pursuit of Assange undermines its commitment to press freedom and freedom of expression, both domestically and internationally. While condemning other countries for similar actions, the U.S. government fails to uphold these fundamental principles when it comes to Assange. By continuing to prosecute Assange and seeking his extradition, the U.S. undermines its own credibility as a champion of human rights and democratic values. The initiative by Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Junior to petition for Assange’s release and pledge a pardon on the first day of his presidency serves as a compelling argument for his immediate release.

Join Mailing List

At this critical juncture in Julian Assange’s legal battle, mere appeals for justice fall short of addressing the urgent humanitarian issue. Assange’s deteriorating health underscores the immediate need for his release. The prolonged legal proceedings have taken a severe toll on his physical and mental well-being, making his continued detention untenable. It is evident that Assange’s health is rapidly deteriorating, and every passing day in detention further exacerbates his condition. The time for legal manoeuvring has passed; what is needed now is decisive action to rectify the grave injustice inflicted upon Assange and ensure his right to life, freedom, and dignity.

As we await the outcome of the High Court’s decision, we must remember that true justice can only be realised through the immediate abandonment of the extradition request and the immediate release of Assange.

Jaimie Stevenson

Jaimie Stevenson JD (Monash) is a legal consultant for Australian-based SMEs, specialising in technology, data, privacy and IP law. She is passionate about the rule of law, as opposed to arbitrary rules, and minimal government encroachment on the inherent rights of the
individual including freedom, autonomy and dignity.

25 Provocative Predictions For 2024 From The World’s #1 Political Observer

Kenelm Tonkin

26 February 2024

GOVERNMENT OVERREACH

Habeas corpus will not be restored in Australia.

The Australian Federal Budget will be in deficit and expenditure will increase on the previous year.

Correct: “A deficit of $28.3 billion is forecast in 2024–25.”
Source: Statement 1: Budget Overview. Page 2.
https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs-1.pdf

Correct: Forecast expenditures for 2023-24 and 2024-25 are $691,070,000,000 and $734,518,000,000 respectively.
Source: Statement 6: Expenses and Net Capital Investment. Page 233.
https://budget.gov.au/content/bp1/index.htm

ENVIRONMENT

There will be at least 7 tropical cyclones or severe tropical cyclones in Australia.

Correct:
Category 3 Severe Tropical Cyclone Anggrek. 10-25 Jan 2024.
Category 3 Severe Tropical Cyclone Kirrily. 12 Jan – 5 Feb 2024.
Category 1 Tropical Cyclone Lincoln. 14-25 Feb 2024.
Category 4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Neville. 4-24 Mar 2024.
Category 4 Severe Tropical Cyclone Megan. 13-21 Mar 2024.
Category 5 Severe Tropical Cyclone Olga. 4-11 Apr 2024.
Category 2 Tropical Cyclone Paul. 9-12 Apr 2024.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%9324_Australian_region_cyclone_season

STOCK MARKET

Woolworths’ revenue will be lower in the March 2024 quarter than in the March 2023 quarter.

Incorrect: Federal Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, called for a Woolworths boycott because it would not stock Australia Day paraphernalia. I incorrectly thought this extraordinary interference with the market might suppress sales below the same quarter the previous year. However, revenue for the 2024 March quarter was $16,800,000,000, higher than for the 2023 March quarter which was $16,338,000,000.
Source: Page 2.
https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20240502/pdf/0634t0t80r8xxq.pdf

HEALTH

There will be 10 or less global cases of wild polio.

Pending: As at 25 May 2024, there have been two cases of wild polio globally, both in Pakistan. Watch this space for more updates.
Source:
https://www.who.int/news/item/08-04-2024-statement-following-the-thirty-eighth-meeting-of-the-ihr-emergency-committee-for-polio#:~:text=Sudan%20and%20Sudan.-,Wild%20poliovirus,samples%20to%20date%20in%202024

For the first time, 33% or more of the Australian population will be obese.

SOCIAL TRENDS

The sale of sex dolls will increase in Australia.

In at least one month during 2024, social media platform X will attract more than 450 million monthly users.

Correct: On 24 May 2024, Elon Musk announced X achieved over 600 million monthly active users.
Source:
https://www.socialmediatoday.com/news/elon-musk-x-now-600-million-monthly-active-users/717078/ and https://backlinko.com/twitter-users#twitter-monthly-users

Mount Barker SA will have a larger population than Busselton WA, Orange NSW, Bowral NSW, Dubbo NSW, Nowra NSW or Bathurst NSW.

At least 25% of Australians will attend church monthly.

Less than 50% of Australians will use TV as their source of news.

Pet ownership in Australia will grow to more than 70% of all households.

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Space X’s Starship will successfully reach orbit.

ECONOMICS

The number of new incorporations will decrease in Australia from the previous year.

Pending: In 2022-23, there were 406,365 business entries in Australia. We are waiting for the 2023-24 number
Source:
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/business-indicators/counts-australian-businesses-including-entries-and- exits/latest-release

Cash transactions will decrease below 17% of total transactions.

Australian coal exports will increase from last year.

ELECTIONS

The ALP-Greens Coalition will be returned to government in the ACT General Election.

The Country Liberal Party will win the Northern Territory General Election.

Correct: The CLP won the election on 24 Aug 2024.
Source:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/country-liberal-party-promises-new-chapter-after-northern-territory-election-win/cwyuz1x0a

The Liberal-National Party will win the Queensland State Election.

Barring court-affirmed election fraud, a diagnosis of ill-health, imprisonment or assassination, Donald Trump will win the US Presidency.

GEOPOLITICS

In 2024, China will neither invade Taiwan by land nor impose a naval blockade.

The United Nations General Assembly will pass at least three resolutions concerning Israel and Australia will vote with the United States.

Pending: UN Security Council Resolution 2735 adopted 10 June 2024.
Source: https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/165/11/pdf/n2416511.pdf

There will be no resolution of the conflict in Ukraine.

At least two international borders will change.

Correct:
1 Jan 2024. Republic of Artsakh reintegrated into Azerbaijan.
1 Apr 2024. Puntland announces independence from Somalia.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_changes_(1914%E2%80%93present)

Join Mailing List

DEATHS

At least two of the following people will die: Ray Lawler, Sophia Loren, Julian Assange, Patricia Routledge, Tom Hughes, Jimmy Carter, Mike Carlton.

Pending: Ray Lawler died on 24 July 2024.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Lawler

SUMMARY
Correct: 5
Pending: 19
Incorrect: 1

Kenelm Tonkin

An entrepreneur who has employed 1,470+ people, Kenelm was admitted to the BRW Fast 100 three times with businesses in Australia, NZ, Singapore and New York, where he lived for 12 years. Kenelm’s investment firm performs mid-market leveraged roll-ups. He was a regular columnist for the Australian Financial Review. Kenelm is the Founder of Liberty Itch.

China’s Priority Next: Faith or Freedom?

Warren Wang

16 February 2024

In my previous article “China 2024 and Beyond“, I argued that China, amid its troubles, is in desperate need of a visionary leader akin to Deng Xiaoping. Such a leader could rejuvenate China’s economy through policies that prioritise freedom.

The esteemed former senator, Bob Day, responded by emphasising the power of the Gospel when contemplating China’s future trajectory. It’s a common assertion among Christians, particularly those with libertarian leanings, that the importance of Christianity, along with economic and political freedom, could herald comprehensive benefits for the nation. This article explores these considerations while also engaging in a broader discussion on the interplay between freedom and (Christian) faith.

The Spiritual Evolution in China

In my opinion China’s spiritual landscape has evolved through four distinct stages: the early spirituality may be characterised by nature and ancestor worship, and a worship of “Shang Di” (Heavenly Lord), who is believed to be the creator of heaven and earth, similar to the Christian God but far less personal. This belief is still prevalent among the general public.

The second stage is philosophical spirituality with the emergence of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. However, arguably, none of these are religions per se: Confucianism is a set of philosophies clearly based on the teachings of Confucius without any deity; Taoism, with Laozi as its founder, who many regard as the first libertarian philosopher in human history, later developed into a polytheistic religion; while Buddhism similarly shared a path from being a philosophy into a religion.

Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial.

The third stage began with the Chinese Communist Party’s control of China since 1949, leading to a brutal suppression of spiritual beliefs, especially during the Cultural Revolution.

The fourth stage, following China’s reopening in the late 1970s, has seen a remarkable revival of spirituality, reflecting a collective search for meaning and identity amidst rapid modernisation.

The Role of Faith in Individual and Societal Morality

Fundamentally, faith acts as a guiding light for personal conduct and a moral compass for believers. It endows life with purpose, peace, and direction for believers, while non-believers might find similar guidance in their conscience.

On a societal level, faith possesses transformative power. Traditions like Buddhism and Taoism encourage introspection, whereas Christianity and Islam advocate for outward societal influence which has the potential to prompt change, for better or for worse. Despite the general hostility of modern authoritarian regimes towards religion, often under Marxist influences, their tolerance varies across faiths.

In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance, with only state-approved churches operating openly (and still cautiously) and underground churches enduring constant harassment.

Understanding Faith Correctly

Given the significant influence of faith and religion on shaping society, understanding faith becomes crucial. Using Christianity as an illustration, it’s evident how misconceptions can distort its teachings for harmful ends—endorsing slavery through misinterpretations of the Old Testament, justifying support for Hitler with references to Romans, and aligning it with Communism by pointing to Acts.

In China, Buddhism enjoys public support for its perceived blessings on wealth and fortune, contrasting starkly with Christianity’s limited tolerance

A proper understanding of Christianity revisits foundational principles: God’s creation of Adam with free will and accountability, the Ten Commandments’ assertion of the rights to life, liberty, and property, and Jesus’ teaching of the Golden Rule to treat others as one wishes to be treated, without advocating coercion to impose personal beliefs on others.

Consider the concept of a “Christian society” as a further example. Despite their differences, both Western nations like the UK, the US, and Australia and those caught in the “Latin American Trap”, including Argentina and Brazil, share a profound commonality: they are deeply influenced by Christianity and have substantial Christian populations. While the former group has achieved peace and prosperity, the latter has experienced considerable chaos and distress. This division illustrates that while the path to freedom has been closely linked with Christian teachings historically, the presence of Christian faith alone does not ensure a nation’s success. Faith, undoubtedly beneficial for inner peace, moral guidance, or spiritual salvation, falls short as a reliable predictor of a country’s future prosperity.

Freedom: The Foundation of Prosperity

Freedom, on the other hand, is the cornerstone of a country’s prosperity. Under Deng Xiaoping, China made significant progress in economic freedom from the late 1970s, seeing major advancements through the 1990s and stability into the early 2010s. This progress has significantly reversed under Xi Jinping’s rule. Meanwhile, the brief hope for political freedom in the 1980s was crushed by the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the absence of political freedom has further undermined economic liberties, eventually culminating in constitutional changes that could extend Xi’s presidency indefinitely.

Join Mailing List

In the end, I believe faith is akin to the heart, guiding individuals and societies with its moral compass and providing the ultimate meaning of life. Freedom, on the other hand, is akin to the mind, steering societal direction, with economic freedom protecting property rights and political freedom guarding individual sovereignty.

I endorse the words of Argentine President Javier Milei from his Davos speech: “Long live freedom, dammit!”

Warren Wang

Warren escaped Communist China a decade ago to pursue education in Australia. Now a finance businessman, he passionately defends libertarian freedoms. Vigorously opposing COVID lockdowns and mandates, Warren champions traditional Western liberties, hoping Australia avoids becoming the repressive nation he left behind.

The Nation State

James Hol

2 February 2024

As another Australia Day passes, it gives us the opportunity to reflect on our national identity and what it truly means to be Australian with the number purporting to opt out of celebrating our national day increasing.

CHANGE THE DATE

26 January 1788 marks the landing of the First Fleet and raising of the Union Jack in Sydney Harbour. While it is true it has only been granted public-holiday status since 1994, the term “Australia Day” has been used to celebrate 26 January in all states and territories since 1935. In New South Wales, 26 January celebrations date back to 1808.

While changing the date may sound like a way of keeping more people happy, in fact complaints about the date are nothing more than a facade for the true anti-Australian and anti-Western motivations behind the movement.

History is replete with actions that we would find abhorrent in modern society – and some of the actions of Australia’s first settlers are no exception. Regardless of what new date we may find, the grievance industry would have absolutely no hesitation finding some historical injustice on that new date to complain about. Which is precisely the point.

Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny.

The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety. In fact, these grievance professionals do not believe Australia, or its culture, is worth celebrating. They are the Australian subsidiary of the global grievance industry’s efforts to prevent the celebration of any aspect of Western culture, despite it being responsible for the most free and equitable societies in human history.

A BROKEN CLOCK

But what if they’re right? What if these grievance professionals have stumbled onto something, inadvertently of course? The irony is that Australia is the wet dream of the very authoritarians who attempt to suppress the celebration of any of its achievements.

Contrary to the popular narrative of the laid-back Aussie, we are an incredibly orderly and compliant bunch. If Shakespeare was right and all the world is indeed a stage, Australia is the usher, dutifully ensuring the audience is seated correctly and quickly shushing those who dare exceed the permitted level of fun.

And what do we have to be proud of? Let’s look to modern times. Having the world’s longest and harshest lockdowns? Excessive levels of taxation? Forced participation in the political system? A disarmed populace?

“But we were once a great nation” all the boomers will cry! Perhaps we were; I was not alive to see, but I suspect that is nothing more than a nice comfort to cling to.

THE LUCKY COUNTRY

Our history suggests we were always orderly and compliant, inheriting our love for order from Mother Britian and never seeking independence from her. Like an overly dependent child and a helicopter mother: the mother fearful of the harms that freedom may entail, and the child comforted by a familiar dependence.

The true intention behind those campaigning to “change the date” is to abolish Australia Day in its entirety.

Australian liberty is no better summarised than by our closest encounter with homegrown rebellion: the Eureaka Stockade. It lasted a grand total of 15 minutes before the rebels were overrun by security forces.

While the founding documents of the rebel miners proclaims that “taxation without representation is tyranny”, echoing the language of the United States Declaration of Independence, the Eureka flag now hangs in the offices of tyrants across the country.

The symbol of our failed rebellion is captured by the tax collectors and tyrants it once opposed. All to the rapturous applause and adulation of the captive populace.

GOLDEN SOIL

Australia has now become the global roadmap for Western tyranny. American gun-grabbers point to “the Australian model” to disarm their populace. Global health bureaucrats gushed over “the Australian approach” to Covid tyranny. Regulators worldwide were inspired by Australia’s plain-package cigarettes and sky-high tobacco excise.

Join Mailing List

While the Australian economy was once described as “a farm on top of a mine”, it should now be updated to “an unrelenting bureaucracy on top of a mine”. By revenue, state government administration is now the biggest industry in Australia. And tyranny is our biggest export.
And even though I celebrated Australia Day the most Aussie way I know how, in front of a barbeque, with a beer in hand and the cricket on TV, as the state-mandated bedtime approached, I couldn’t help but wonder: am I truly proud to be Australian?

James Hol

Decommissioning Solar & Wind Projects: A Costly Endeavour

Meaghan Whyte

22 January 2024

Over the last decade, decommissioning and waste management of solar and wind energy projects has grown into a thriving industry. In the decades to come, with the continued deployment of projects all over the world, it will massively expand.

Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes. Decommissioning large plants can run up costs of millions, or even billions.

Solar

As solar capacity expands, demand for decommissioning services will increase. International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that global solar project waste will reach 212 million tonnes a year by 2050.

Despite photovoltaic projects supposedly lasting 20 years, owners often decommission early. Reasons include broken panels, manufacturers out of business, outdated technical attributes and unprofitable projects.

The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

Solar systems require highly specialised waste management. To reduce landfill waste and promote sustainability, responsible disposal and recycling practices are crucial.

Environmental concerns regarding solar waste components include gallium arsenide, tellurium, crystalline silicon, lead, chromium, cadmium, sulfuric acid, mercury, radioactive materials and heavy earth minerals. Inadequate disposal leads to chemicals leaching into groundwater, stressing nature and agriculture and poisoning drinking water.

Solar panels also contain valuable raw materials such as copper, steel, aluminium, zinc, and silver. These are wasted in landfill.

Wind

Waste management of wind turbine blades is also complicated, expensive and raises environmental concerns.

Each blade is 50 to 90 metres long. It must be cut up using specialised equipment. Blades consist of resin and fibreglass, which cannot be recycled or crushed. Existing landfills do not have space for them and setting up new landfills is expensive.

To understand the scope of the issues, let’s take a look at the two largest economies, the US and China.

US

Solar

Commenting on a report by the Energy Information Administration, Solarcycle CEO Suvi Sharma said, “Solar is becoming the dominant form of power generation, but with that comes a new set of challenges and opportunities. We have not done anything yet on making [solar] circular and dealing with end-of-life [panels].”

There are approximately 500 million solar panels installed across the US, increasing 20% each year. Ninety percent of decommissioned panels currently go to landfill due to recycling costs. From 2030 to 2060, the US will accumulate 9.8 million tonnes of solar panel waste, according to a 2019 study published in Renewable Energy.

Sharma stated that, “We see that gap closing over the next five to 10 years significantly, through a combination of recycling becoming more cost-effective and landfill costs only increasing.”

Time will tell whether or not this prediction is accurate.

Solar and wind projects require highly specialised recycling and waste management processes.

Wind

The lifespan of a wind turbine is purportedly 20 years. However, as Julie Angulo, senior vice president of Veolia stated “We are seeing a wave of blades that are 10 to 12 years old, we know that number is going to go up.”

Decommissioned wind turbine blades have joined solar panels in landfills, and are known as ‘forever waste’.

According to a 2021 study released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the US will decommission 3,000 to 9,000 blades every year until 2026, 10,000 to 20,000 blades a year until 2040, and 235,000 blades a year by 2050.

China

China leads the world in wind and solar energy equipment manufacture. China’s initial aim was 1,200 gigawatts of wind and solar by 2030. The Global Energy Monitor estimates China will pass this five years ahead of schedule.

Waste volumes will rise as projects are decommissioned and replaced, emphasising the need for recycling measures. China currently doesn’t have specific regulations or processes for solar panel and wind turbine waste management. The State has announced it is working on industrial standards and rules to address this.

The state planning agency advised that China aims to have a “basically mature” full-process recycling system for wind turbines and solar panels by the end of the decade.

Solar

China is the world’s leading solar market. It has surpassed everyone in terms of expenditure, manufactured panels and energy production.

The International Renewable Energy Agency reported that in 2023, China dominated global solar panel additions with a record-breaking year, adding an estimated 180 to 230 gigawatts.

Join Mailing List

However, in June last year China’s official Science and Technology Daily newspaper advised that in spite of the lifespan of 20 years, many of China’s solar projects show significant wear. The paper cited experts saying that China will have 1.5 million metric tonnes of decommissioned panels by 2030. This rises to 20 million tonnes by 2050 and is also in line with The International Renewable Energy Agency’s estimations. China will have the greatest amount of solar panel waste in the world.

Conclusion

The burgeoning solar and wind energy sectors demand attention to the economic implications of decommissioning and waste management. We need to face the fact that “sustainable” energy might not be so sustainable, and fossil fuels alongside nuclear are still necessary to keep costs and environmental damage to a minimum.

Meaghan Whyte

The Liberty Coalition is Finally (T)Here

James Hol

5 July 2023

In my first article, I discussed the disunity among the ‘freedom movement’ and the loosely aligned ‘freedom’ parties. This sparked further discussion, culminating in the beginning of a potential coalition for federal elections. While that seems to have fizzled out for now, political coalition-building and alliance-forming is gaining traction across the Pacific.

COLOARDO FOR LIBERTY

In the US state of Colorado, two unlikely bedfellows have decided that one-party Democratic rule over the State needs to end. The Colorado Libertarian Party and the Republican Party have brokered an historic agreement regarding local, state and congressional elections.

Without getting into the complexities of US electoral systems, the Libertarians have agreed not to run ‘spoiler candidates’ in many districts provided the Republicans nominate genuine “liberty-focused” candidates. Think more Ron Pauls and fewer Mitt Romneys.

This has attracted the ire of Democrat Governor Jared Polis. Following the announcement, Polis spent the next few days quoting Rothbard and Hayek, pretending to be a libertarian and obviously hoping Coloradans would have forgotten about his draconian Covid restrictions and subversive property tax increases.

Regardless of the political outcome of this alliance, the fact it has forced the establishment to compete on the principles of liberty is already a huge win.

BRINGING IT HOME

How a liberty coalition might operate in Australia has already been aptly outlined by none other than a former Senator. And unlike the US, Australia has the massive triple benefits of preferential voting, proportional voting and formal coalition tickets.

Preferential voting means there is no such thing as ‘spoiler candidates’ in our federal electoral system. Proportional voting, which is relevant in the Senate and most state-level upper houses, means the quotas required to get elected are far lower than those in the US. A formal coalition ticket is the mechanism used by the Liberal and National parties to run Senate candidates from both parties in a combined group.

Australia also does not have the same difficulties with ballot access for minor parties that are found in the US. In many congressional districts you will only be presented with Republican and Democrat candidates on the ballot, as they often team up to ensure few, if any, alternative candidates can even nominate.

EYES ON THE PRIZE

Of course, the Colorado announcement has not exactly gone down swimmingly with everyone. Libertarians, infamous for their hatred of each other above all else, are unsurprisingly splintered. Many are, understandably, quite hesitant about getting into bed with the ‘Diet Democrats’.

However, over time the benefits of this arrangement are becoming too hard to ignore. Principles are winning over partisanship, and now murmurs of Libertarian-Republican alliances are being heard across the US, with Minnesota apparently next in line.

The cultural shift is an even bigger win than any political outcome that might stem from this deal. The 2024 Colorado election has now turned into a referendum on who has the most libertarian values. Even more than that, liberty-minded members of both the GOP and Democrats now have the impetus to demand change within their respective parties.

The battle for liberty must be fought on all fronts, and requires the support of those working to change from within.

PRINCIPLES OVER PARTY

A lot can be learned from Colorado, and I hope others within the ‘freedom movement’ are watching this arrangement closely. Australia’s unique electoral system is the perfect opportunity to implement an even better alliance, without even needing to rely on a major party.

Not only does having the balance of power in the Senate and state upper houses provide an anchor of liberty, just as the Greens provide an anchor of socialism, but like the cultural influence from our friends in Colorado, it provides an impetus for others to begin discussing liberty in political party rooms, executive meetings and membership conferences – as well as around the dinner table.

And, as has happened in the Centennial State, perhaps all political candidates will soon be competing over who cares most about liberty.

James Hol

STATE WORSHIP

MYTH AND LEGEND

LIFE AND MEANING

The Spiritual Evolution in China

The Role of Faith in Individual and Societal Morality

Understanding Faith Correctly

Freedom: The Foundation of Prosperity

Solar

Wind

US

Solar

Wind

China

Solar

Conclusion

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY