Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

    Home Politics, Strategy, Campaigns, Elections

    Know Thy Enemy

    By
    James Hol
    -
    1

    We all love to hate politicians, understandably so, and the last thing I want to do is advocate that we start treating politicians nicer. But it is important to identify the true threat to liberty.

    STARRY-EYED BEGINNINGS

    Whether we agree with them ideologically or not, it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community. While there certainly are some that are drawn to the power and prestige that politics can bring, these are a minority.

    Most politicians fall into one of two camps: fed-up professionals or lifelong activists who perceive an issue they genuinely feel needs redress. While we may disagree with the catalyst that ignited their passion or the solutions they prescribe, it is difficult to disagree with the sincerity of their conviction. Most of us who are politically active have felt this way before.

    Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

    THE DEEP STATE

    The biggest threat to liberty is something that has existed as long as government, but has grown exponentially over the last half century. It has gone by many names, recently portrayed in shadowy terms with conspiratorial overtones. 

    While the preferred modern verbiage is “the deep state”, it is nothing more than the faceless bureaucrats who comprise the ever-expanding three- and four-letter agencies of the executive government.

    Western democracies, particularly those with Anglophonic origins, typically separate government into three arms: the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. The legislature, or parliament in Australia, is the part of government most of us think of whenever that unfortunate thought enters our mind – the part that democracy makes accountable to the people. The judiciary consists of judges and courts – the determiners of fault. While the executive government is far more nebulous and ambiguously defined – often referred to as “the enforcer”.

    THE EXECUTIVES

    The most obvious example of the executive government is the police: they enforce the laws that parliament creates, purportedly regardless of their view on such laws, and bring alleged offenders before the courts where fault is determined. Or at least, this is how it is supposed to operate. While I am sure there are still plenty of police officers enforcing laws they don’t agree with, police departments have included the additional function of political lobbying in the last few decades – and this is only increasing.

    It wasn’t that long ago that most police departments were made of willing and capable men who were simply looking out for their community – much like the starry-eyed politicians mentioned earlier – often on a voluntary or part-time basis. 

     it is true that most politicians begin their career with a genuine desire to improve their community. 

    Now all police departments are highly formalised, employing many thousands of full-time officers, that regularly pressure the government to introduce ill-conceived laws for the primary purpose of making their jobs easier and safer. And while I wish no harm on our police, separating powers means the enforcement arm should not influence the law-making arm.

    BLURRED LINES

    Police are not even the most egregious offender. How about the Commonwealth Department of Education? It employed nearly 125,000 people in 2022, not one of whom taught a single student; all of them effectively lobbyists or busybodies; all of them pressuring the government to implement their agenda or enforcing compliance against teachers – you know, the ones who actually teach students – who dared not adopt their curriculum, whether deliberate or inadvertent.

    The executive comprises the vast majority of the totality of government: the few hundred people we elect and their staff are effectively a rounding error. And as government grows, it is entirely within the executive government. Recent proposals to increase the number of parliamentarians were widely welcomed, even among libertarians.

    Join Mailing List

    TYRANNICAL ENDINGS

    And it is this growth that makes our starry-eyed politician almost doomed to fail.

    Government is so big it is near impossible for politicians to have sufficient knowledge, no matter how well intentioned. So they turn to the bureaucrats, who face no public accountability and often spend decades in their cushy jobs, who spoon feed them their agenda.
    Even if our starry-eyed politician has some hesitation, he shrugs his shoulders and tells himself: well, I guess he’s the expert.

    How much should we pay our pollies?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Among the many criticisms of politicians that I heard during my time as a Senator, the accusation that they are only in it for the pay and perks, looking after themselves rather than the country and voters, was one of the most common. 

    Sometimes this arose from dissatisfaction with certain politicians, but more often it reflected disdain for them all. Many Australians are convinced politicians are paid far more than they are worth. 

    I am inclined to agree. 

    This prompts the question – should politicians be paid at all? Should we treat parliamentary service as a career, as we do now, or as a form of public service necessitating an element of sacrifice? And if politicians are to be paid, what is an appropriate amount? 

    Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election

    In democracy’s ancient home, Athens, eligible citizens all had a civic duty to participate in the governing assembly. There was no salary, although in the 5th century BC an attendance fee was introduced as an incentive. 

    In the British parliament, on which our democracy is based, service in the House of Commons was unpaid until 1911. Members of the House of Lords, who are mostly appointed, are still unpaid unless they hold an official position. They can claim an attendance allowance plus limited travel expenses, although many do not bother. 

    Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service. In New Hampshire, for example, state legislators are paid just $200 for their two-year term plus mileage. In Maine, Kansas, Wyoming and New Mexico, state politicians are paid less than what Australian local government councillors receive. 

    It’s different for heads of government, most of whom are well paid. Top of the list is the prime minister of Singapore, at more than a million dollars and over five times the pay of ordinary MPs. By comparison Australia is rather egalitarian; our government leaders are only paid about double what ordinary politicians receive. 

    But it is the pay of ordinary politicians that agitates people, and on that Australia is generous. A backbench member of the Federal Parliament receives a package (i.e. salary, allowances and superannuation) of at least $280,000. State politicians’ salaries tend to be only slightly lower. 

    This is far more than what most of them earned before getting elected and, more importantly, is much more than what they could earn if they lost their seat. This has a powerful effect on their behaviour. 

    Not paying politicians would change the types of people who offer themselves for election. In the case of New Hampshire, around half the members of the legislature are retired, with an average age of 58. 

    Politicians in several US states receive little or no pay for their service.

    Perhaps it is reasonable they be paid something. Being a senator can be extremely busy, as I found. There are not only long days in Canberra but also committee hearings and an endless stream of people seeking help. Most politicians treat it as a full-time job and their salary is their sole source of income. 

    But that need not be the case. While the workload for key ministers is typically substantial, ordinary MPs have considerable time-flexibility. Indeed, some undertake additional study or write a book, while a few maintain a professional interest (such as doctors) or remain involved in an outside business (as I did). 

    More to the point, a great deal of the activity of politicians is designed to help them get re-elected. Being paid a handsome salary with generous expenses while doing this gives them a significant advantage over their unelected competitors. 

    Join Mailing List

    The reason for entering politics ought to be service to the country rather than a lucrative professional career. It should attract people who have achieved more than navigated their way through a party, worked for existing politicians, and manipulated numbers to gain preselection. Politicians should also have a life outside politics that ensures they are not desperate to be re-elected. 

    It is difficult to see how political service is substantially any different from serving on the board of a charity or other non-profit organisation, for which there is reimbursement of expenses and possibly an attendance fee. It should ideally be no better paid than any other job an incumbent is likely to achieve. 

    And, of course, service in politics should be viewed as a temporary role that will end. And when it does, there should be something to go back to. 

    Resisting Centralist Power – Part 1

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    In 1901, when six individual British colonies came together as a federation, it was in an environment of extensive and, at times, torrid debate. While there was widespread acceptance that the colonies could achieve together what they could not achieve alone, there was also apprehension about the extent to which the power to govern would become centralised.

    The enthusiasm and sense of expectation surrounding the birth of a nation was tempered by concerns about the future autonomy of individual colonies. The smaller colonies were also apprehensive about the power and influence the larger colonies might exercise.

    As a consequence, the process leading to the formation of the Australian Constitution was both painstaking and torturous.

    One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

    During the first of the convention debates in 1891, Sir Samuel Griffith, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, captured the essence of concerns 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.”

    In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.” It is clear, both from the Constitution and from the record of the Convention debates, that the Federal government was to have significant but well-defined powers. All powers not defined in the Constitution, known as the residual powers, were to remain the province of the States. However, the ink was barely dry on the Constitution before a growing appetite for centralised power emerged.

    Foundations of Power

    The powers of the Commonwealth were set out in Section 51 of the Constitution, and their scope described in 39 subsections known as a head of power. While the States retained the right to legislate on these matters as well, the Constitution provided that where any inconsistency existed between Federal and State legislation, the Federal legislation prevailed.

    The powers ceded to the Federal government were very wide and included interstate trade and commerce, corporations, external affairs, taxation, defence, quarantine, currency, pensions, banking and many more.

    Centralisation of Power

    As one might expect, the first issue on which the boundaries of authority between the States and Commonwealth were tested related to tax, with the High Court becoming the arena for argument. The gloves came off, the lawyers were primed, and the fight over money began.

    The first tests came in 1904 in Peterwald v Bartley where the High Court examined whether the Constitution prohibited the States from imposing excise duty. This was followed the same year with D’Emden v Pedder, in which the power of the States to impose taxes on Commonwealth activities was rejected. 

    In 1908, in response to the Constitutional requirement that any surplus tax revenues in the first decade of Federation be returned to the States, the Commonwealth enacted legislation to pay these surpluses into a trust account thereby avoiding payment to the States. One can imagine how much this would have helped the fledgling Commonwealth-State relationship.

    In 1910, the Constitutional obligation that not less than 75 per cent of the Commonwealth’s customs and excise revenue be distributed to the States came to an end. While the arrangement was mandated for only the first decade of Federation, the Commonwealth terminated the arrangement as soon as it was legally able to do so, much to the ire of the States.

    In uniting as a nation, each colony agreed to cede a portion of its powers so that the nation might become “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.”

    Commonwealth government activity and bureaucracy then began to grow rapidly, fed by its growing tax harvest. The years leading up to World War 1 (1910-1914) saw increases in Commonwealth control of the economy and in social services. In 1915, following the entry of Australia into the war, the Commonwealth introduced income tax which co-existed with income tax applied by the States.

    Over the next few decades, both in the High Court and through legislation, the Commonwealth and States battled for territory in a number of areas including tax, defence and welfare services. So extreme was the discontent with the way the federation was heading that some States, most notably Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, contemplated secession. In 1933 a referendum was held in Western Australia.

    At the time there was a Great Depression and every State was struggling. Some believed the problems were a result of Federal government policies and actions, particularly in respect of tariffs imposed to protect the manufacturing and sugar industries.

    Join Mailing List

    The result of the WA referendum sent shock waves through the rest of Australia with 68% of West Australians voting in favour of secession. This was about the same number who had voted to join the Federation only 33 years earlier. The desire of West Australians to separate from the Federation was not fulfilled as the British Imperial Parliament refused to act, claiming that such an action could only be taken with the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet. Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    Libertarianism is an Ideology, But Not a World View

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

    Libertarianism is an ideology, but not a world view, according to a distinction offered by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action. A world view, Mises explains, is “an interpretation of all things,” “an explanation of all phenomena.” In short, world views “interpret the universe.” Ideology, by contrast, is a narrower concept comprising “the totality of our doctrines concerning individual conduct and social relations.” Ideologies are concerned solely with human action as it manifests in social cooperation. Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

    Mises observes that world views and ideologies both share a normative outlook. They do not purport merely to describe the way things are, but offer a perspective on the way things ought to be. What distinguishes a world view from an ideology is scope. Where world views have broad and diverse, even cosmic, interests and concerns, ideologies have limited interests and concerns, specifically centred around the nature, shape and fate of society. This narrower focus on society naturally lends ideologies to political action, whether in the form of party organisation, reform, lobbying, protest or rebellion, because political power is a significant lever for affecting the shape of society.

    As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism

    World views, on the other hand, because of the breadth of their concern and the extent of the phenomena they purport to explain, encompass wholistic outlooks on life. They can encompass anything from stories about the creation of the universe to dietary habits, as many religions do. Their breadth of perspective is such that they can and do incorporate and integrate views about society and politics. However, this breadth does not necessitate the action-oriented social focus of ideologies. The religious ascetic is a case in point. The ascetic withdraws entirely from society as a means of dedicating themselves completely to their world view. 

    Because ideologies, on Mises’s account, are only concerned with human action and social cooperation, they tend to “disregard the problems of metaphysics, religious dogma, the natural sciences and the technologies derived from them.” This seems to overlook the capacity of at least some religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism, to involve themselves with social and political concerns. It also overlooks, or perhaps underestimated (Mises was born in 1881 and died in 1973), the way that science has more recently proved itself capable of morphing into political ideology. Still, it is undeniable that all three Abrahamic faiths constitute world views on the Misesian definition. Each has generated traditions and practices that avoid, shun or repudiate political action, proving that they are capable of existing as non-ideological world views. In the case of libertarianism, on the other hand, the Misesian distinction between world view and ideology is helpful in clarifying that it is very much an ideology, as distinct from a world view. 

    Libertarianism is concerned exclusively with society, particularly the way it is organised and governed. It possesses neither a cosmogony, nor a cosmology, distinguishing it from classical, if controversial, definitions of religion. Libertarians can, of course, mirror some of the attributes of religious adherents in their zeal, proselytising and uncompromising commitment to dogma. However, this does not make libertarianism a world view per se, nor the most ardent libertarian fanatic the adherent of a libertarian world view. 

    The truth of the matter is that libertarianism is agnostic on the fundamental questions of existence that animate religions and philosophies, and which are therefore essential to world views. These are questions best left to the conscience of individuals, as far as libertarians are concerned. Moreover, the libertarian program does not hinge on any particular answer to them. Mises, an agnostic Jew, exemplified this principle in his own life. He thought it was futile to speculate about the given facts of the universe. Instead, he was interested in analysing and understanding human action within the given parameters of existence: the means individuals employ to attain their chosen ends. He thought there was no point evaluating the ends as these were inherently a matter of subjective choice.

    Religions have world views, whereas political parties have ideologies. 

    Means, on the other hand, could be analysed objectively and evaluated concretely in terms of success and failure, i.e., an assessment of whether the chosen means realised the ends they were employed to attain. He thought the majority of political ideologies ultimately aspired to the same ends, including liberalism and socialism, namely human prosperity and wellbeing. Where they differed, and in very consequential ways, was means. Mises took little issue with the aspirational ends of socialism. He simply, and accurately, predicted that the means employed—common ownership over the means of production—would lead to the opposite outcome from that intended. Liberalism, on the other hand, in the 19th century classical European sense of the term, was in Mises’s view the only objective means of attaining the ends of human prosperity and wellbeing. By liberalism, Mises meant a social organisation that maximised individual freedom to purse personally chosen ends and means, with a minimal government in the background protecting individuals from aggression, fraud and infringement against their property rights. 

    Mises typified the world view agnosticism that is characteristic of libertarianism today. He was as uncompromising a defender of individual freedoms, private property and free markets as anyone (famously so). But he was genuinely open and agnostic on the great existential questions that occupy the human mind and heart. The stridency of his views about social and political means was matched by a tolerance for all manner of diverse world views, at least as their teaching pertained to the origin and nature of the universe, and the myriad ends that humans are free to pursue. 

    Join Mailing List

    The world view flexibility of libertarianism is evident today in the way that it is embraced by religious believers and atheists alike, not to mention agnostics like Mises. As an ideology, libertarianism is uniquely accommodating of world view pluralism. It is possible for individuals with clashing and mutually incompatible world views (Christians and atheists, for example) to unite around the cause of a libertarian ideology. World view pluralism is simply the by-product of the libertarian ideological commitment to a social order that permits individuals to pursue their own diverse ends. The freedoms libertarians wish to secure and safeguard for all individuals to develop their own world views is one of the unheralded virtues of their ideology.

    Got something to say?

    Liberty Itch is Australia’s leading libertarian media outlet.

    Its stable of writers has promoted the cause of liberty and freedom across

    the economic and social spectrum through the publication of more than 300 quality articles.

    Do you have something you’d like to say? If so, please send your contribution to editor@libertyitch.com

    More Political Competition

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    0

    According to Treasurer Jim Chalmers, increasing competition among supermarket giants will help deliver lower grocery prices: “If it is more competitive, more transparent and people are getting a fair go, better outcomes will be seen at the supermarket checkout“.  

    The ACCC also notes that competition encourages innovation.  

    But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes: the former through lower prices and better quality, and the latter through lower taxes and better services.

    And just as those in the commercial sector prefer less competition, so too do the players in the political sector; the dominant political parties frequently colluding to modify electoral laws to defend their incumbency.  

    The Albanese government, while pursuing a business competition reform agenda, is also surreptitiously running an electoral reform agenda which will have the opposite effect, reducing political competition.

    Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”

    In his 1776 magnum opus The Wealth of Nations, the father of economics Adam Smith wrote, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    This quote is often used to describe the potential for anti-competitive behaviour within business.  However, with politics now more of a trade than a calling, Smith’s description equally applies to our elected class—a group that regularly meets, often for merriment, in a well-appointed building, to conspire against the Australian public.

    While Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh pursue new competition law amendments claimed to “make our economy more productive, more dynamic, and more competitive”, Special Minister of State Don Farrell is developing plans to make it more difficult for small parties and independent candidates to compete in the political marketplace.  Farrell even recently stated that “the Westminster system provides for a two-party operation.”  A duopoly that is.

    Recently also South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas proposed to ban electoral donations.  Were such a reform implemented, it would further privilege and embed the major parties by making it exceptionally difficult for new parties to emerge.  Raised barriers to entry lead to reduced competition.

    Political parties are exempted from many important laws including privacy and the proposed mis- and dis- information laws.  This makes their perpetual assault on political competition and concentration of political power even more nefarious.

    At a time of declining support for the major parties as measured by first preference voting and polling, the major parties continue to work together to maintain their political duopoly.

    Although the latest electoral proposals are being driven by a Labor Government, the Coalition also has dirty hands.  In 2021, the Coalition government passed laws, with Labor’s support, to shorten pre-polling periods and force the deregistration of some minor parties.  As part of this the major parties confiscated the words “liberal” and “labor” from the political lexicon, perpetually vesting these terms in themselves.

    Even Gough Whitlam’s grand dream of fixed four-year electoral terms has received bipartisan support with both John Howard and Peter Dutton offering endorsement. Extended terms transfer power from the people to the elected with no recourse, such as binding citizen-initiated referenda (as occur in Switzerland) or recall elections (as occur in the US).

    It was not always thus.  Over recent years, our neo-professional political class has increasingly and incrementally colluded to raise the barriers to entry for alternative parties and candidates.  This has contributed to a homogenization of personnel and policy, making the differences between the average Labor and Coalition candidate barely discernible to the average voter.

    For all the talk of diversity, this homogenization has led to much reduced experiential, cognitive and policy differentiation among politicians.  Many members of our parliaments, irrespective of party, gender, race, sexual preference or religion, follow similar educational and pre-parliamentary career paths.  While elected governments may change, there is a consistent trajectory of permanent government expansion and price rises through ever higher taxes.

    Since the turn of the millennium, it has been bipartisan policy and practice to increase spending, taxes, and the volume of regulations to ever greater levels.  The assaults on civil liberties and the crowding out of civil society similarly continue unabated.

    But where enhanced market competition can lead to improved consumer outcomes, enhanced political competition can lead to improved citizen outcomes

    It is not just a reduction of competition at the political level.  There has been a long-term de-federalisation project to aggregate power in Canberra; a manifestation of the French “disease” described by Alexis de Tocqueville as the tendency to concentrate authority in central government; something Tocqueville believed to be detrimental to political and social health.

    Australian states and territories used to compete on policy and tax rates, acting as “laboratories of democracy”, a term coined by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.  Death duties in Australia were abolished not through some fiat from Canberra but because of competition between the states and territories.

    However, today some 81 percent of total tax revenue is collected by the Commonwealth, leading to policy centralisation and standardisation.  Matters constitutionally the provenance of the states, such as health and education, are now increasingly directed out of Canberra; fidelity to the intent of the Australian constitution and of tax and policy competition be damned.  

    Join Mailing List

    Just recently, the United States celebrated 248 years of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, it included this famous sentence: “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.

    Just as politics is downstream from culture, policy is downstream from politics.  It’s time to change the way politics is done in Australia.

    “Fight!”

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    In the aftermath of the attempted assassination of the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, mainstream media urged us all to “cool the temperature” of political discourse. 

    While I am all for a more civil political discourse, forgive me if I find it a bit rich coming from the same media that has spent the best part of a decade calling the man “literally Hitler” and “the greatest threat to democracy”.

    COOLER HEADS

    The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position, because any call to “cool the temperature” amounts to a tacit admission regarding the unending hyperbole they have been spewing since Trump rode down that escalator in 2015. Because if Trump is “literally Hitler” then his assassination should be the ethical duty of any good citizen who wishes to prevent tyranny. If Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy”, the only reason we should all be upset is because the would-be assassin missed.

    Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature

    The logically consistent position of the left can only be one of dismay and frustration at the inaccuracy of the shot. In fact, the other guy (not Jack Black) from the washed-up 90s novelty band, Tenacious D, made exactly those remarks. Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, better known by his online handle Destiny, went even further: going out of his way to appear on any platform that would have him to not only bemoan the inaccuracy of the shot, but proudly proclaim that he did not even care that Corey Comperatore, the innocent man shot by the assailant while protecting his family, lost his life.

    As horrid as those remarks are, and they rightfully received their backlash, they are the logically consistent position of the bullshit the US establishment – aided by left-wing activists – has been actively pushing. I mean who cares if a Nazi gets shot at a Nazi rally, right?

    WORDS

    Words have meaning, and as Jordan Peterson warns: “be precise in your speech”. Adolf Hitler was responsible for the murder of at least 17 million people. As at the time of writing, Trump is responsible for zero murders.

    And after a very brief pause, both the Democrats and mainstream media are right back to calling Trump “the existential threat to democracy”. Going through the legal process to challenge election results apparently amounts to an “existential threat”. It is honestly a surprise that more people haven’t been motivated to shoot him after being blasted with lie after lie after lie, non-stop propaganda, for nine years.

    Don’t get me started on making a criminal out of your political opponent for incorrectly filling out a campaign finance declaration form. Given how the media has presented that case, one would be mistaken for thinking non-disclosure agreements (i.e. “hush money”) were illegal.

    So if you can’t beat him in the polls and you can’t throw him in jail, what’s the next logical step? You’ve spent almost a decade laying out the justification.

    The mainstream media has put itself in quite a precarious position

    ACTIONS

    But if the media is actually genuine in its calls to “cool the temperature” and “return to civil political discourse”, cheap throwaway lines aren’t going to cut it. Lecturing others to be nicer when talking politics might not have the desired effect. To truly cool political temperatures we need to stop talking past each other and actually address the legitimate grievances of all sides.

    Is the media ready to take responsibility for raising the political temperature by calling any politician or political candidate who isn’t an outright establishment hack “dangerous”? How about the endless climate fearmongering? Or cheerleading the greatest assault on liberty for over three years? Radio silence.

    Join Mailing List

    But don’t even think about sharing a meme about the stupidity of the world we currently find ourselves in, because that is what’s dangerous. Unauthorised speech, or “misinformation” according to the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary, is the true danger according to the media. It is dangerous because it is a gate they cannot keep.

    While more civility in politics would certainly be refreshingly welcome, maybe it’s time for the media and establishment politicians to lead by example and take some accountability for their own (massive) roles in turning up the dial. Maybe then I’ll be willing to take the call a little more seriously.

    CFMEU Should NOT Exist in the First Place

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    0

    In light of recent scandals surrounding the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), it is time to consider a more fundamental issue: the very existence of unions in modern society. Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect. From a libertarian perspective, unions disrupt voluntary employer-employee relationships, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. The existence of unions like the CFMEU is contrary to the principles of a free market and individual autonomy.

    Libertarian economists and thinkers have extensively argued that unions are inherently coercive institutions that distort labour markets and undermine individual freedom. Essentially, unions are a political organisation rather than an economic organisation, aiming at controlling the labour market with coercive and political means, rather than through voluntary exchange and cooperation.

    Distortion of Labour Markets

    Fundamentally, unions disrupt the natural balance between employers and employees. Unions often demand higher wages and better working conditions than what the market can sustainably provide, which inevitably leads to inefficiencies and can drive businesses to reduce their workforce. As Murray Rothbard once stated, “unions cannot determine wage rates without putting companies out of business and causing unemployment.” The adversarial relationships unions create between employers and employees often lead to strikes, reduced productivity, and a hostile work environment. Employers are forced to comply with union demands or face the threat of collective action, which is economically damaging.

    Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous.

    Infringement on Individual Liberty

    Unions impose collective bargaining agreements on all workers, regardless of individual preferences. This coercive nature undermines the voluntary nature of employment contracts. One of the most fundamental arguments against unions is that they violate the very basic principle of freedom of association, as well as the freedom not to associate. In a free market, employment terms are negotiated based on mutual benefit. Employers offer wages and conditions that reflect the value of the work, and employees accept jobs that meet their needs and preferences. This voluntary exchange is the cornerstone of a free and prosperous society.

    Perpetuation of Corruption and Inefficiency

    The CFMEU scandal is just another recent prime example of how unions can become corrupt and self-serving. Instead of protecting workers, the CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities, kickback schemes, and internal conflicts that harm the very people they are supposed to help. This corruption is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the broader problem with unions. With power comes corruption. It is no surprise that unions become corrupt over time as that is part of their nature.

    The Case for Abolishing Unions

    Given all the fundamental problems with unions, the natural conclusion is that we should abolish them entirely. Without unions, the labour market would be more efficient, fair, and prosperous. Without unions, employers and employees would engage in direct negotiations, fostering a more cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship. Without unions, businesses would operate more efficiently, leading to greater innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

    Unions like the CFMEU are outdated organisations that do more harm than good to the people they claim to protect.

    Furthermore, the abolition of unions would protect individual freedoms. Workers would and should have the freedom to negotiate their terms of employment based on their unique needs and circumstances, without being forced into collective agreements that may not serve their interests. This would lead to a more diverse and dynamic labour market, where individuals are free to pursue opportunities that best align with their skills and personal situations.

    Moreover, many industries with either very weak or nominal unions, such as hospitality, IT, and the gig economy, flourish due to less intervention from unions, resulting in a freer labour market. For example, the tech industry has seen tremendous growth and innovation partly because it is less burdened by union constraints, allowing for more flexible and dynamic employment practices. The gig economy, encompassing platforms like Uber, demonstrates how flexible work arrangements can be managed without the involvement or interference of unions. This, I believe, represents the future of employment, where every individual acts as their own boss, making the existence of unions unnecessary. These examples highlight how a freer labour market can lead to industry growth and innovation, benefiting both employers and employees.

    Join Mailing List

    Conclusion

    In summary, unions like the CFMEU should have no place in a modern, free-market economy. They distort labour markets, infringe on individual liberties, and perpetuate corruption and inefficiency. From a libertarian perspective, the abolition of unions would lead to a more prosperous, fair, and free society. By allowing voluntary employer-employee relationships to flourish, we can create a more dynamic and innovative economy that benefits everyone.

    Out of Proportion 

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    0

    Recent elections in both the UK and France highlight major flaws in their electoral systems, with lessons for Australia. 

    Compare the pair:

    UK Labour (2024 UK election)

    • National vote share: 33.8%
    • Seats won (% of chamber): 63.38

    Australian Labor Party (2022 Australian Federal election)

    • National vote share (2pp): 52.13% 
    • Seats won (% of chamber): 51

    How can an electoral system be considered fair when one party (Labour) can take 34% of the national vote and win a ‘landslide’ election, while another (Reform) can take almost 15% and go home with 0.8% of the seats (5 out of 650)? It’s a similar story in France, where National Rally comfortably won the popular vote but will walk away with less seats than Macron’s centrists and the NPF. 

    Political candidates and parties receive public electoral funding in Australia on a per-vote basis.

    It highlights the importance of two key pillars of Australia’s electoral system, but also points to a couple of weaknesses. 

    I believe the UK election highlighted the fact that first past the post voting is neither fair nor representative. In an election dominated by an almost universal will to unseat the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats often campaigned on prior results or current polling to indicate that voters should vote ‘tactically’ to ensure the Tories lost.

    On the other hand, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party did not encourage such a practice, instead seeking to simply gain votes at everyone’s expense. As a result, the right-wing vote was regularly ‘split’ and either Labour or the Lib Dems were able to take the highest vote share.

    Apart from the national vote being wildly out of proportion to the composition of Parliament, it is unfortunate that parties should gain votes tactically. It is regrettable that voters, rather than choose their preferred party/candidate, feel compelled to vote for the one they feel is most likely to defeat an incumbent they dislike. There’s no way to know how many votes for each party represent a genuine first preference for them. 

    The secondary issue here is the lack of a vehicle for proportional representation. If the UK had a second (democratically elected) house of parliament that was elected via proportional representation, its make-up would more closely resemble the national vote share, at the same time negating the need for any tactical voting. 

    To bring us back to Australia, although preferential voting in the House of Representatives mostly renders tactical voting unnecessary, there are exceptions. The two-party preferred (2pp) system can influence voters under certain conditions to change their first preference in order to ensure a supposedly more viable candidate is not eliminated early – this occurred in ‘Teal’ seats at the 2022 Federal Election. 

    UK election highlighted the fact that first past the post voting is neither fair nor representative.

    This issue is compounded by the fact that political candidates and parties receive public electoral funding in Australia on a per-vote basis. This practice should ultimately end, not only for the aforementioned factors that influence voters, but due to the ongoing advantage it gives larger political players. 

    Join Mailing List

    The other meaningful change that I’d make to Australia’s electoral system would be to abolish any districting within our state upper houses. By creating geographic segments within the overall electorate, the vote quota needed to gain a seat increases – again locking out smaller players and denying their voters representation. In my home state of Victoria, new legislation (similar to recent reforms in WA) could remove our upper house regions, creating a state-wide proportional race for the Legislative Council.  

    So don’t knock preferential voting: it allows for the most genuine expression of voter intention, and proportional representation ensures even the small players take their rightful place in the chambers. The alternatives are not fit for purpose. 

    The Coming Populist Revolt

    By
    Gary Johns
    -
    0

    Populism occurs when the masses revolt against the elites’ view of the world. Elite opinion does not often deal directly with popular opinion, that is, with the people who have to pay for elite opinion. When elites get it wrong, the masses revolt through the ballot; the Voice referendum being a good example. The question is, when is the next chance?

    Currently, the elite consensus on issues like net zero, immigration and identity politics is so far removed from the reality of the masses that it is no wonder they are pushing back. The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

    International

    Net zero is a preposterous notion. The world population is eight billion people. By 2050, it could be 10 billion people, a 25 per cent increase. These people will need energy. World energy consumption is 600 BTUs. By 2050, it could be 900 BTUs, a 50 per cent increase: more people, higher living standards, more energy. Electricity generation will rise mainly in the Asia-Pacific among developing nations. Renewables do not generally feature in developing countries’ energy mixes anywhere near developed nations’ proportions.

    Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia.

    Of 144 nations tracked for net zero, only 26 have placed in law their commitment to net zero by 2050 (or sooner). For example, the Maldives has pledged net zero by 2030 but it has no plan or accountability mechanism; it is pure hot air. Even Goody Two-Shoes Finland leaves out aviation and shipping and has plans but no mechanism for carbon removal. The US (2050), Russia (2060), China (2060), India (2070) and Brazil (2050) have a ‘policy document’, but nothing in law.

    Australia has a plan written in law that is sure to kill the nation’s wealth. Industrial and economic mayhem, loss of reliable energy and higher energy prices will reduce living standards. Minister Bowen’s deployment targets are logistically impossible in the time frame.

    Kenneth Schultz estimates a total cost of $1.4 trillion for the Coalition’s renewables-nuclear option. He estimates the cost for Labor’s renewables-battery option at $4.4 trillion, nine times the federal government’s total annual revenue.

    National 

    Migration in Europe and Australia is dangerous at levels that challenge national unity. Numbers count. If one million Palestinians settled in Australia in a short period, for example, the result would undermine Australian society. Palestinians would settle in a few suburbs and recreate a Palestinian society, i.e. one that recreates the hatred extant in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Values also count. Australia would do well to distinguish migrants by the nature of their observance, which is apparent in the laws on marriage, succession, or rape in marriage among our key Islamic migrant source countries: Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia. A striking feature of those laws is that they distinguish the application of the law by religion. Religion first; the rule of law second. The question is how to distinguish this at an individual level. Classing people by source country is too crude and unfair, but not to distinguish people would be foolhardy. Why should Australia invite those unlikely to integrate or, worse, become an enemy?

    Those who appreciate the benefits of the nation-state would support Prime Minister John Howard’s view that, ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.’ Howard and the Australian electorate recognised that some people are not welcome as they are unlikely to fit in. In the long term, Australia will be much more Indian and Chinese. Of the three million permanent migrants who arrived in Australia since 2000, almost 450,000 were from India, and nearly 350,000 were from China. The assumption of integration must be reinforced.

    The easy assumptions of integration post-World War II no longer hold. Since 2022, the Netherlands has required a substantial investment from a person applying for permanent residence before that privilege is granted. The civic integration requirements are set out in the Civic Integration Act 2021. The point of the Netherlands law is that applicants must be sufficiently integrated before they become permanent.

    The populist revolt, should it occur, will play out at three levels – international, national and personal.

    Personal

    Women have gained formal and substantive equality in Australia. They are free to sing the praises of Palestine. Homosexuals are free to marry and raise children. But the trans lobby wants to abolish gender, which is dangerous to the mental health of trans people. Sex must be understood in evolutionary terms. There must be sperm and eggs for reproduction. Two women do not create a child, and two men do not create a child. They may care for them, and we wish them well. The proposition that sex is not binary, that it is socially determined, is dangerous, especially to those who find that they are not at ease with their sex and want to reassign their sex to suit their ‘gender’.

    Anyone should be free to express themselves as male or female. But when sex is detached from reproduction, there are consequences. As Zachary Elliott argues in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth, ‘If we abandon sex as an important category in our society, how can we conduct safe and effective medical research and treatment; fight sex-based injustices; record accurate crime statistics; maintain fair, safe, and competitive sports categories; and implement equal opportunities for both sexes?’

    There is a claim that almost two per cent of the population is intersex, neither male nor female. The numbers consist almost entirely of those who suffer developmental disorders, such as late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia. People with these conditions account for nearly all the males or females who do not appear to be one or the other. The disorders occur in nature and do not result in good health. They are not socially determined.

    Join Mailing List

    Populism in the service of correcting the madness of net zero, overplayed migration and undermined sexual identity are ground zero for the populist fightback. The masses await the right leader and the right policies. Populism? More please!

    Gary Johns is Chairman of Close the Gap Research 

    This article was first published in The Spectator.

    Can libertarianism become a brand in Australia?

    By
    Jonathan Cole
    -
    0

    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. 

    123...8Page 1 of 8

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    Who’s Adding or Removing The PM From Their Christmas Card List?

    Kenelm Tonkin - 0
    Apparently, many are adding or removing Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, from their Christmas card mailing list. Here are the notable ten … Novak Djokovic, added....

    A Nation of Takers

    What is at Stake in Religious Freedom

    SENATE ALERT: Battle fought to remove covid vaccine mandates in the...

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv