Economics

Home Economics

The New Gulag

In his famous three-volume masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described the frozen wastelands of Siberia where political prisoners and dissidents the Soviet state considered dangerous were held (for their speech, not their actions). A gulag was a Soviet prison; an archipelago is a string of islands; hence the term ‘gulag archipelago’ – a string of camps, prisons, transit centres, secret police, informers, spies and interrogators across Siberia.

Today, people are frozen out of society in more subtle ways. The authorities no longer bash down your door and haul you off to a gulag for espousing the ‘wrong views’; instead, they silence and freeze you out of existence in other ways.

No-one describes the current situation better than Scottish commentator Neil Oliver in his Essentials of Life video clip here. More about that shortly.

Divide and conquer

As we know, the Left’s chief weapon is division. Unite the disaffected groups and those with grievances, and then ‘divide and conquer’ the rest of us. Divide along racial, generational, sexual, religious or economic lines. Any line will do.

What may have started as ‘the workers vs the bosses’ – ‘the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie’ – and ‘supporting the poor’, became just a ruse to gain power. Workers and the poor have long since been abandoned by the Left who now find other ways to divide and conquer.

In his excellent book, Democracy in a Divided Australia, Matthew Lesh writes:

Australia has a new political, cultural, and economic elite. The class divides of yesteryear have been replaced by new divisions between Inners and Outers. This divide is ripping apart our political parties, national debate, and social fabric.

Inners are highly educated inner-city progressive cosmopolitans who value change, diversity, and self-actualisation. Inners, despite being a minority, dominate politics on both sides, the bureaucracy, universities, civil society, corporates, and the media. They have created a society ruled by educated elites – that is, ruled by themselves.

Outers are the instinctive traditionalists who value stability, safety, and unity. Outers are politically, culturally, and economically marginalised in today’s graduate-dominated knowledge society era. Their voice is muzzled in public debate, driving disillusionment with the major parties, and record levels of frustration, disengagement, and pessimism.

For over a hundred years, Australia fought to remove race from civic considerations. Yet now we are being asked to permanently divide the nation by entrenching an Indigenous Voice into our Constitution. By the ‘Inners’, of course.

In the workplace, politicians are still treating workplace behaviour like a game of football. Australia’s employers (‘the bosses’) are on one team, and Australia’s employees (‘the workers’) are on the other. The game is then overseen by a so-called ‘independent umpire’ called the Fair Work Commission. But of course, this is not how workplaces operate at all. The ‘game’, if you even want to call it that, is played not by two teams of employers and employees, but by hundreds, even thousands of different teams, competing against hundreds and thousands of other teams of employers and employees.

Mark Twain observed, “Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example”.

Here’s one – the infamous Dollar Sweets dispute where unions were picketing Fred Stauder’s confectionery business. Other confectionery businesses were approached to support Fred but were rebuffed saying, “Why should we care if Dollar Sweets goes down? It will mean more business for us.”  So much for ‘bosses vs workers’.

While paying lip service to free markets, property rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, free speech, lower taxes, the rule of law and smaller government, the Liberal Party in Australia has all but abandoned these ideals in practice. As has big business, which, truth be known, was never on the side of free markets. Corporations have always wanted markets they can dominate, and to eliminate the competition. If that means aligning with the Left or doing the government’s bidding, so be it.

Which includes – and here we return to our ‘new gulags’ theme – closing a person’s bank account, destroying them on social media, or excluding them from employment. Business is right on board with this.

The Left will keep pushing its woke agenda until it is stopped. And it will not be stopped with facts, figures, logic, evidence or reason. It doesn’t care about any of that. It will only be stopped with political power.

Holding conferences, writing opinion pieces, producing podcasts and YouTube interviews in the hope of persuading people have, I’m afraid, had their day. The ‘Inners’ now rule.

Stopping the relentless march of the Left will require political power. Seats in parliament. Which means like-minded people and parties forming alliances and working strategically and tactically together to win seats.

In Neil Oliver’s video clip, he says, “When it comes to the state, that which it can do, it certainly will do” and “What can happen to anyone, will soon happen to everyone”.  

So, if you belong to a think-tank, lobby group or centre-right political party, and want to stop the woke Left further ruining our country, then please encourage your organisation to place less emphasis on winning arguments and more emphasis on winning seats – as previously outlined here and here.

Thank you for your support.

The ABS Just Found 188,000 Public Servants Hiding Behind The Lounge Cushions.

The Numbers Grow Ever More Staggering Every Year.

Around early November of every year, the ABS publishes statistics on the number of public sector employees in Australia.  The numbers grow ever more staggering every year.

The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023.  That is across Commonwealth, State, Territory, and Local Government.  By way of context, this is:

  • more than the entire population of Perth;
  • a centimetre away from the entire population of Brisbane;
  • five times the entire population of the ACT; and
  • four times the entire population of Tasmania.

How bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.

The salary costs for all these employees for the 12 months to 30 June 2023 was a humble $215 billion.  Again by way of context, Australia could pay for the multi-year AUKUS nuclear submarine program with one and one third years of Australian public sector employee salaries.

In November 2022, the ABS said there were 2,160,000 public sector employees at June 2022.  Twelve months later, in November 2023, the ABS said there were 2,348,400 at the very same date.  That is, the ABS somehow found an extra 188,000 extra public sector employees hiding behind the lounge cushions.  Just a small 9% variation.

The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023

This is not a suggestion that there should be no public sector employees.  But 2.4 million?  Is it any wonder that Australia is experiencing economic pain and inflation with ever more resources being transferred from production to the public sector.  Plus all the reported skills shortages … in engineering, ICT, legal, accounting, and trades … how bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.

These numbers are staggering but are sadly par for the course in Australia, where our political leaders seem to believe that any problem can be solved by taking money and property by means of legal force from taxpayers to give to people who pay no price when their schemes and solutions don’t work.

The Misguided Quest for “Fair Share”

“Grab your torch and pitch-fork” was the rallying cry of the left in the recent debate over stage three tax cuts.  And so the mob was led to follow a trail of sprinkled money to the door of high income earners to rob them of tax relief. 

In the debate over Australia’s tax system, the concept of “fair share” has been wielded like a moral cudgel. Advocates argue high-income earners should pay more under the guise of affordability. Yet when we examine the impact of progressive taxation, especially through the lens of real-life financial pressures, the narrative of fairness starts to show cracks. 

Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

Consider someone earning $200,000 annually. Contrary to the image of affluence often portrayed, they face substantial financial obligations: mortgages, rising living costs, and family expenses. Despite these challenges, they’re taxed at a rate significantly higher than those earning $70,000.

Under the new “Stage 3” regime, the person on $200,000 pays $55,000, which is $45,000 more than the person on $70,000 who pays $10,000. That is, more than five times as much in absolute dollars. Fairness isn’t just about percentages; it’s about the impact on individuals’ lives. The dialogue around tax rates frequently ignores these actual dollars paid, masking the true disparity. (See graph).

Furthermore, this focus on rates overlooks a critical issue: bracket creep. As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power. This is an insidious form of taxation that exacerbates the burden on middle and higher-income earners, eroding the principle of fairness the system claims to uphold. 

Moreover, the strategy of progressive taxation, while politically popular, overlooks the broader economic implications. High tax rates for top earners disincentivize the innovation and investment that drive economic growth. It is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes immediate political gain over long-term prosperity. 

As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power.

But the conversation about fairness must also challenge the government’s role in fiscal management. Instead of relying on tax increases, especially through bracket creep, as a default solution for budget shortfalls, there’s a pressing need for government to exercise fiscal restraint. This involves cutting wasteful spending, prioritizing essential services, and treating taxpayers’ money with the respect it deserves. Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

A fair tax system would mitigate the effects of bracket creep, ensuring that individuals are not penalised for nominal increases in income that don’t reflect real gains in wealth. Alternatives such as a flat tax could offer more equitable solutions, ensuring everyone pays their share in a manner that encourages economic growth and innovation. 

In advocating for a truly “fair share” we must demand comprehensive tax reform that addresses not only the rate of taxation but also the underlying issues of bracket creep and fiscal responsibility. The aim should be a system that encourages prosperity, treats every taxpayer with fairness, and holds the government accountable for the stewardship of public funds. The quest for fairness in taxation is not just about adjusting rates; it’s about crafting policies that encourage a vibrant economy, respect individual contributions, and ensure the government treats taxpayer money with the care it warrants.

Letting The Market Work With Immigration

The Immigration Debate in Australia: Assessing Infrastructure and Policy for Sustainable Growth

Every few years, Australia has a major debate about immigration. Sometimes due to people arriving by boats and claiming refugee status, at other times by a public figure saying something about a ‘Big Australia’, it is a subject on which most people have an opinion.

The current debate is a bit different. The Covid border closures and lockdowns meant immigration ceased. With no immigrants, backpackers, foreign students or Pacific farm workers, some industries ground to a halt.

The debate now is not so much about whether immigration is needed, but whether our infrastructure can cope with the numbers.

Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices.

That debate is not helped by the fact that Australia does not have a coherent immigration policy. In the post-Covid environment, the Government is simply making short-term decisions to address immediate needs based on industry pressure. It is also deliberately boosting immigration to avoid a decline in GDP for two consecutive quarters. 

From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role. While free trade in goods and services are no-brainers, the free movement of labour is not sustainable in a welfare state. The question is, how could a market operate? 

The current approach involves the government not only deciding how many people the country should admit, but what kinds of people. This equates to central planning, with bureaucrats purporting to know what the economy requires. Needless to say, this is not remotely comparable to the employment decisions of hundreds of thousands of businesses and individuals. 

A better approach would before the government to set broad parameters, while the market does the rest. This could be achieved by charging a significant fee for residence visas (there is a fee already but it’s just $4640) and then getting out of the way.

This idea originated from the Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker, who recommended it as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration in America and the UK.  What he proposed is for the government to set a price (or prices) according to how many people it wished to admit, then allow everyone who can pay that price to come in apart from obvious exceptions like terrorists. That is, the government would not be picking and choosing who to admit.

Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker
Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker

He also suggests the program would reduce opposition to immigration by eliminating the sense that immigrants were getting ‘a free ride’. Fees would contribute to the cost of maintaining and renewing infrastructure that others had paid for.

Becker argues that as well as being a revenue raiser for governments, the policy would ensure that only the most productive and skilled immigrants would be attracted. Having paid the fee, the immigrants would be committed to their adopted country and keen to make a go of it.

Industries or employers short of workers could cover or subsidise the entry fees of those they wish to employ, while regions keen to boost their populations could do the same.

Fees could be reduced or waived for a number of bona fide refugees fleeing persecution, while those who support the entry of more refugees could raise funds to pay their entry fees.

Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices. This would allow the market to operate via the price mechanism.

From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role.

Importantly, payment of the fee should only allow for permanent residence. Access to welfare (unemployment, etc)should be reserved for citizens, with citizenship restricted to those who had established themselves over a number of years, share our values of freedom and democracy, and have demonstrated their desire to build a long-term future in Australia.

Those unable to find work may have their visa cancelled and be subject to deportation, although short term benefits might be justified on the grounds that it was covered by the fee they paid.

This system would ensure intending permanent immigrants were well aware of the need to gain employment.The most qualified and employable person in a family would be first to pay the fee and take up residence, working to save the funds for other family members. Over time, families would be reunited in Australia as they are now, except that each member would have made a valuable contribution to the economy.

Temporary immigrants (tourists, backpackers, seasonal workers, students, etc) would not be required to pay the fee unless they sought permanent residence (as many foreign students do.) This approach would apply market forces to the selection of immigrants. With markets infinitely better than governments at allocating resources, the outcome for Australia could only be positive.

The Long, Long, Long Long List of Taxes!

1

Have you ever wondered how many taxes there are in Australia?

The answer might shock you!

Here’s the list. (If I’ve missed some, please let me know in the comments below):

  • (Federal) Personal Income Tax (aka PAYG Withholding Taxes)
  • (Federal) Company Tax
  • (Federal) Capital Gains Tax
  • (Federal) Goods and Services Tax
  • (Federal) Fringe Benefits Tax
  • (Federal) Medicare Levy
  • (Federal) Medicare Levy Surcharge
  • (Federal) Superannuation Guarantee
  • (Federal) Superannuation Guarantee Charge
  • (Federal) Luxury Car Tax
  • (Federal) Customs Duty
  • (State) Payroll Tax
  • (State) Land Tax
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Transfer of Real Estate
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Motor Vehicle Registration
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Motor Vehicle Transfer
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Leases
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Mortgages
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Hire Purchase Agreements
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Transfer of Business
  • (State) Stamp Duty on Transfer of Shares
  • (State) Excise Duty on Fuel
  • (State) Excise Duty on Alcohol
  • (State) Excise Duty on Tobacco
  • (Local) Council Rates

To my count, that is twenty-six different taxes.

What have I missed?

Smaller Government: Georgia Shows It’s Achievable

To any true libertarian, Government regulation in Australia feels increasingly suffocating. This feeling is backed by statistics. According to the Parliamentary Education office the Australian Government added an average of 109 new laws every year from 1901 to 2013. Since 2013, that increased to 139 new laws per year.

Typically, when the Government is criticised for its interference in our private lives and businesses, it justifies this by drawing a comparison with European countries. Sure, Australia has unsustainable state and federal deficits, business closures exceed new businesses, there is increasing crime and homelessness, a housing affordability and supply crisis, plus a plethora of worsening social and economic statistics. But some of our taxes are lower than Germany, we are not as broke as Greece, and citizens are freer than in North Korea. Therefore, apparently, everything is fantastic.

The Government has a point, though. Looking at the nations of the G20, most are facing far bigger problems than Australia, and none are moving in a libertarian direction. All are increasing taxation, expanding the size and scope of the public sector, and raising the difficulty of operating a private business. There are almost no recent examples of a country achieving superior outcomes by moving in the opposite direction; except, perhaps, for the small nation of Georgia.

… first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy.

Georgia was the birthplace of Joseph Stalin and formerly part of the Soviet Union. A decade after the Soviet Union’s collapse, it was a basket case. The government was insolvent; the country was rife with corruption, crime and poverty; the police force was essentially a mafioso street gang; infrastructure was crumbling; utilities such as power and water only functioned occasionally.

In 2003 there was a revolution and Mikhail Saakashvili was elected to the presidency. The usual gaggle of globalist socialist technocrats showered Saakashvili with the usual ruinous recommendations straight from the book ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’: take out impossibly huge IMF loans, increase taxation and impose ruthless austerity.

Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.

Mikheil Saakashvili. Third President of Georgia. 2008-2013.

As a result, rather than deepening the country’s bankruptcy – as predicted by the IMF – tax revenue doubled in just the first year. Over Saakashvili’s two terms, the economy went on to quadruple in size while tax revenue increased 1200% and poverty decreased by 75%.

Saakashvili appointed a committed, renowned libertarian, Kakha Bendukidze, as the Minister of Economy and Reform Coordination. Bendukidze was no academic bureaucrat; he was a self-made multi-centi-millionaire. He had a degree in biology and made his fortune creating a chemical manufacturing empire in Russia.

Bendukidze’s first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy. The head of every government agency was forced to justify their existence to him, like contestants on the TV show, Shark Tank. Bendukidze had authority to eliminate any agency on the spot.

Among the first of the Agencies to be eliminated was the police force. The force was determined to be so corrupt, and so distrusted by the populace, that the only solution was to fire everyone. So that is what they did. Somehow they managed to quickly form a new police force. The whole exercise earned the trust and respect of citizens, so the streets became safe. Within just three years Georgia was ranked among the top countries in the world for personal safety.

Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.

In his first two months, Bendukidze slashed approximately 70% of regulations and the majority of government agencies. He and Saakashvili also instituted a policy that no new regulation could be added unless two existing regulations were repealed. In total they achieved a 90% reduction in regulations, resulting in Georgia being recognised as the top reforming country in the world by the World Bank, and leaping from 137th to 8th in the Ease of Doing Business rankings. It also went from ranking among the most corrupt countries in Europe, to 3rd least corrupt.

They not only cut tax rates; they cut the tax code down to just six taxes, and amended the constitution so that the only way to increase taxation was via a referendum. This gave confidence to the international investment community that Georgia’s reforms were stable and reliable, resulting in a quadrupling of the rate of international investment.

Georgia represents a compelling case study in contemporary politics and economics. It was brought to ruin by Marxism, then revived by the unapologetic application of libertarian principles and free market capitalism.

The Blame Game

SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states

On 1 July 2014, my first day as a Senator, Adelaide’s Advertiser newspaper published an opinion piece I had submitted titled, Shedding the ‘Bludger State’ tag, in which I implored the SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states and start standing on its own two feet.

Then Premier Jay Weatherill responded by calling me ‘an enemy of the state’.

Many South Australians can probably remember the time when more than a dozen of Australia’s top 100 listed companies had their head offices in Adelaide – News Ltd, Fauldings, Southcorp, Elders, Normandy Mining, Adelaide Bank, Adelaide Brighton, Standard Chartered Finance to name just a few. Today there’s just one – Santos (and even Santos is only headquartered in Adelaide because of some vague arrangement).  

At the time of Federation, South Australia led the constitutional debates and had an influential hand in shaping the new Commonwealth of Australia. For decades after, Adelaide was Australia’s Number 3 city – bigger and more prosperous than either Brisbane or Perth. 

Led by Tom Playford, South Australia prospered under the principle of ‘cheap land, cheap power, cheap water, and cheap labour’. Wages were lower than in Sydney and Melbourne, but despite the lower pay packets, South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts. 

Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.

It was an example of genuine competitive federalism – not the pseudo competitive federalism of today in which state governments try to outdo each other enticing companies to set up in their states. 

Since those halcyon days, South Australia has lost each of the competitive edges that made it prosperous. 

First to go was cheap land – thanks to urban planning controls – then water, then centralised wage fixing (waiters, nurses, and factory workers across Australia all had to get the same pay). 

As for power prices, they are now not just the highest in Australia, but some of the highest in the world. 

Last year, the South Australian premier folded like a pack of cards over nuclear power. The idea that he and his Labor colleagues would take on the urban planners, water barons and unions to make SA competitive again is laughable. 

SA is destined to be a mendicant State for a long time to come. 

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once said, “We’re all Australians, whether we’re from Melbourne or Sydney”. 

Where those from the ‘outlying States’ (as Paul Keating called them) belonged, was anyone’s guess.

When Australia came together as a nation in 1901, Sir Samuel Griffith, nailed it by saying:

“We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.” 

Sir Samuel Griffith

Those who spend the money should raise the money

The powers given to the Federal Government by the states in 1901 included trade and commerce, corporations, currency, banking, pensions, taxation, foreign affairs, communications, copyright, marriage and family law, quarantine, and defence. 

There was no mention of hospitals, schools, disability services, pink batts, carbon dioxide emissions or many of the other things that federal governments these days decide they want to spend our money on.

Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.

In 1942, all income taxing power was handed to the Federal government for the duration of World War II under the ‘defence’ power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and was to last until the end of the war. But as predictable as the sunrise, when the war ended the Feds did not relinquish their income tax collector role (not that the states wanted to resume income tax collection, but that is not the point).

Since then, the tax revenue balance has continued to move away from the states and towards the Feds. The imbalance which now exists is known as ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’.

South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts. 

Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federal country in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all government revenues – much more than is required to fund its own operations – while the states don’t raise anywhere near enough to fund theirs. The Feds then make up the states’ shortfall through Commonwealth grants.

This creates a perpetual blame game. Failures at the state level are blamed on the Feds’ lack of funding, and failures at the federal level are blamed on the states’ poor service delivery.

Duplication of health and education bureaucracies alone costs taxpayers billions of dollars, yet the Feds do not run a single hospital or a single school. 

This cannot go on. State and Federal governments should only collect taxes for their own purposes, and taxpayers and consumers should be fully informed as to what is a state tax and what is a Federal tax. Those who spend the money should bear the responsibility of raising it.

This confusing power structure between the states and the Federal government – and between individual states – was emphatically exposed during Covid, with many calling for the abolition of state governments and the formation of one national government.

But as Covid revealed, the Federal government doesn’t have the power it thought it had. The Feds may have the money, but it’s the states that have the power.

Sacred Geese and Rousing Speeches

Who would have thought that quacking geese could help save the Roman Republic from a Gallic horde in 390 BC?

It prompts the question: could a stirring speech on liberty help save Australia from its government in 2023 AD?

The Roman Republic was born when a warrior gathered his family from the ashes of Troy and founded a city destined to become one of the greatest civilisations in history. But its emergence was not without repeated struggles.

Grappling with rapid growth and accumulated power, the Republic was in danger of being crushed by Gallic invaders. Rome had conquered most of her neighbouring Italian lands, but chronic infighting among the Senate and Tribunes distracted it from the rising threat outside the empire.

The ancient historian, Livy, in The Early History of Rome, wrote of a warning which was ignored because it came from a plebeian of no consequence.

“The Gauls are coming!”

And they were. Gallic armies decimated vast swathes of Roman territory.

In a final siege to sack Rome, Gallic troops climbed the Citadel wall, which was minimally defended as an exodus to neighbouring provinces had occurred. The people slept. Not even the dogs were alerted; it took the screeching of sacred geese to wake the people from their slumber and quickly act to repel the enemy.

Australia in 2023 is facing its own enemy at the gate. It goes by the name of Government.

While we don’t suffer from screeching geese in our parliaments – albeit some may like to draw a comparison – our representatives are in a prime position to sound the alarm.

The government’s surveillance tentacles are reaching so far into our lives that we soon may not be able to breathe without its consent. Citizens are facing censorship of their thoughts, speech, and actions with the impending ACMA Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, a direct threat to our democracy.

In the Parliament of New South Wales, on 28 June 2023, one newly elected MP laid down the stakes for liberty, delivering a rousing endorsement of the natural rights and abilities of the people, and a scathing assessment of government interference. 

In his maiden speech, John Ruddick articulated the essence of free market capitalism:

“We believe in the inherent morality of capitalism simply because, that is what people will spontaneously do when left alone. The worst atrocities of history were not the result of drought, flood, pestilence, or plague but of big government throwing its weight around like an elephant stomping on ants.”

One would think such a passionate defence of liberty would be welcomed in a democratic nation.

Alas, YouTube swiftly took it down.

Was it the mention of “anarcho-capitalism” that offended the senses of the censorship tzars? Perhaps too radical an idea for our modern and progressive world to embrace. Sadly, this term is misunderstood. Where it is demonised as being violent in meaning and action, it is really the opposite.

As Mr Ruddick said:

“Anarcho-capitalism has a favourable view of human nature and an unlimited belief in our potential. I am increasingly attracted to the view that we will tap humanity’s highest potential via a government-free voluntary-based society.”

Great speeches won’t save a nation from ruin, but they can affect how people begin to consider the world around them.

Livy tells us that “Destiny had decreed that the Gaul’s were still to feel the true meaning of Roman valour.”

Let our citizens record that the enemy of liberty is still to feel the true meaning of Australian spirit and enterprise.

Sacred geese did not prevent Rome from being invaded by the Gauls, but their screeching put Romans on notice.

Perhaps Mr Ruddick’s speech will serve as a warning for Australians in the face of monumental government overreach, reminding them of the value of our inalienable individual rights and freedoms, and how voluntary associations and agreements are by far the preferred mode of human interaction.

Mr. Adams and his ‘RWNJ’ Slur against an Icon

Federation University’s Verity Archer discovered a letter written in 1975 by Sir Donald Bradman, the greatest cricket batsman ever to play with an unparalleled average of 99.94, to newly elected Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.

The 1975 federal election was undoubtedly a fiercely contested battle. Emotions were high. As any citizen was and is entitled to do, Bradman took a side and wrote:

“A marvellous victory in which your personal conduct and dignity stood out against the background of arrogance and propaganda indulged in by your opponents.”

Bradman next makes a prediction, which you would have to say history shows to be prescient:

“Now you may have to travel a long and difficult road along which your enemies will seek to destroy you.”

Cricket was a sport for amateurs in The Don’s day. Big money had not yet influenced the sport. Players therefore had to develop a career independent their sporting masters. They were tough men on long, self-funded tours, most unlike some knee-bending virtue-signalers and sandpaper betting-agency grubs you are more familiar with from more recent periods. In Sir Donald’s case, he was an accomplished and successful stockbroker in his own right with an advanced understanding of the regulatory framework of his time. Writing about regulations on capital, Bradman consequently wrote:

“What the people need are clearly defined rules which they can read and understand so that they can get on with their affairs.”

Seems fair enough. Sounds like Financial Disclosure Statement (FDS) rules decades later. He then adds:

“The public must be re-educated to believe that private enterprise is entitled to rewards as long as it obeys fair and reasonable rules laid down by government. Maybe you can influence leaders of the press to a better understanding of this necessity of presentation.”

There are four points in that paragraph:

  1. Belief in private enterprise. This is straightforward enough of an idea. It’s the basis of our Western, capitalist liberal democracy;
  2. Gaining the rewards of its initiative. Yes. Private enterprise offers goods and services to the public in return for a profit. This is basic economics. Got it;
  3. Some fair and reasonable rules. Well, let’s not have any rules if possible but, if we must, light-touch and easy-the-understand, sure;
  4. Explain this to the media. Not a bad idea for a government to share with the press the direction it would like to take the country. All good.

What’s to disagree with here?

Yet, out come the socialists and 1975 ancient historians with an axe to grind:

Broadcaster Phillip Adams wrote, “Sad. Lost letter from Bradman to Fraser after Whitlam’s dismissal reveals ‘the Don’ to be a RWNJ.”

Phillip Adams @PhillipAdams_1

Sad. Lost letter from Bradman to Fraser after Whitlam’s dismissal reveals ‘the Don’ to be a RWNJ9:59 PM ∙ Dec 25, 20222,112Likes259Retweets

Unaccustomed to shorthand slurs from journalists, I had to find what RWNJ meant: right-wing nut-job, apparently.

To some boomer-era, battle-axe activists-come-journalists, supporting free-enterprise, light-touch regulation and transparency with the media is radical. Apparently these positions are extreme, wild enough to be branded a right-wing nut-job!

At what point in Australian progress did free enterprise become a dirty word?

Or can we say Mr. Adams is the radical one for slandering a long-deceased Australian sporting icon because he believed in free enterprise.

Or …

… maybe, just maybe, Mr. Adams has another axe to grind. Perhaps he just hates supporters of Malcolm Fraser over the Political Crisis of 1975.

All Liberty Itch says in response is:

  • Mr. Fraser won in a record landslide still not bettered today. Mr. Adams is surely not saying the vast majority of Australians including Sir Donald were RWNJs, is he?
  • Mr. Fraser’s successor, Bob Hawke, thought highly enough of Mr. Fraser to appoint him to the Eminent Persons Group to tackle racism in Apartheid-era South Africa. Mr. Adams is surely not saying Bob Hawke was a right-wing nut-job as well for supporting Mr. Fraser, is he?

Like you, dear reader, I was taught never to speak ill of the dead.

It seems Mr. Adams wasn’t.

Long after Mr. Adams meets the Lord, free enterprise and Western liberal democracy will prevail.

I do hope though that the practice of throwing mud at men long dead and unable to defend their reputations will cease, for Mr. Adams’ sake you understand, dear reader.

For Mr. Adams’ sake.

Argentina Elected A Libertarian Leader, And It Could Happen Here

But it probably won’t.

Argentinians recently voted in Javier Milei to be their President.

Milei has good policies, and he will probably be able to implement a good chunk of them.

This is not just good for Argentinians, it is good news for us. Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

But we shouldn’t get carried away. Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish list, and not all of his policies are good.  And the circumstances of Milei’s election won’t be repeated in Australia any time soon.

Milei has good policies.
Milei’s party has an exemplary, wide-ranging, libertarian platform promoting both social and economic freedoms. Milei did not appear to walk away from any of this platform in his campaign.  

The campaign naturally focussed on economics, given Argentina’s current crisis.  In his campaigning Milei skilfully educated voters on why a libertarian prescription on monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy is the way to go.  

The lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government

Milei is likely to be able to implement some of his policies.
The formal powers of the Argentinian President are similar to those of the US President, with appointment, veto, and decree powers.

Unlike US Presidents, Argentinian Presidents are in the habit of regularly introducing a budget, so Milei will be better placed to cut government spending than an American President.

Milei will bolster the credibility of libertarian parties in Australia.
We can now point to a libertarian in power in a country with more than 45 million people.

We now have a great counter-point to claims that libertarianism is irrelevant.

Australian libertarians seeking election will be able to say that if libertarians can be elected, and if libertarian policies can be implemented in Argentina, then the same can happen in Australia.

But not all of Milei’s policies are good.
Milei stoked and tapped into anti-woke sentiment, including through supportive references to America’s Trump and Brazil’s Bolsonaro.

This is a problem if it translates into the implementation of illiberal policies, or concentrating on issues of wokeness at the expense of more crucial reform, or if it means Milei has the same regard for the law as Trump and Bolsonaro.

Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

That said, Milei’s comments cleverly tapped into anti-woke sentiment without committing to do anything illiberal. After all, there’s nothing illiberal about abolishing a Women’s Ministry. So there might be nothing to worry about on this score.

A more clearly disappointing campaign tactic was Milei’s opposition to legalising euthanasia.

But this tactic may well have been a smart move. A large proportion of Argentinians claim to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church is staunchly anti-euthanasia. Argentinian politics, even for presidential elections, involves considerable coalition building, with Milei’s party working with Argentina’s Faith Party. Milei also faced significant criticism from the Church for wanting to slash welfare, so perhaps it was best to concentrate the attack on the Church at its weakest point.

Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish-list.
Milei’s alliance of parties will have 38 of the 257 seats in the lower house of the national parliament, and 7 of the 72 seats in the upper house.

Argentina is a federal country, and there is next to no libertarian presence at Argentina’s provincial level.

Many of the circumstances of Milei’s election will not be replicated in Australia.
It seems that Milei was elected because both the traditional left-wing grouping (who were in government) and the traditional right-wing grouping (who were in opposition) were unusually splintered and unpopular. Both groupings also lacked a charismatic leader, with both the incumbent President and Vice President not contesting the election. Such conditions could occur in Australia.


But the main reason Milei was elected was Argentina’s economic malaise. Argentina currently has one of the highest inflation rates in the world, and its economy is shrinking. The latest assessment of Freedom House is damning:

“Aggravated by corruption and political interference, the lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government. Leftist spending measures and price controls distort markets, and government interference still hobbles the financial sector. Fading confidence in the government’s determination to promote or even sustain open markets has discouraged entrepreneurship.”

Freedom House’s assessment of Australia is glowing in comparison.

So Argentina needs a libertarian leader more than Australia does, and hopefully more than Australia ever will.
Milei’s election does not presage a global wave of libertarianism, but it is still great news, not just for Argentinians, but for Australians too. Let’s watch and learn.

Popular Posts

My Favorites

We are Family

0
The family unit is a core tenet of a functioning free society. A strong, stable family environment provides a much-needed buffer against the encroachment...

One Day In Venice

Welcome To Free Speech