Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Government

    Home Government

    I’ve got a little list

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    In Gilbert and Sullivan’s opera The Mikado, the character Ko-Ko is appointed to the position of Lord High Executioner. He prepares a list of people to be executed, singing: “I’ve got a little list. They’d really not be missed.”

    I’ve often thought this should be the way we deal with those responsible for Australia’s tragic response to the Covid hysteria. I have a list, and I really don’t believe those on it would be missed. The question is, is it more than a fantasy? 

    A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account. Royal Commissions certainly have broad investigative powers, but they cannot decide guilt or innocence. They can only make recommendations. 

    A Royal Commission is only as good as its terms of reference, which are written by the government. There is an unwritten rule on that – only establish an inquiry when the outcome is either already known or won’t do great harm to the government.  

    There is also a problem with jurisdiction. A Commission established by the Commonwealth is limited to investigating federal issues. That would include international border closures, repatriating Australians, vaccine ordering, the vaccine rollout, use of troops, and the advice of the Commonwealth Health Officer and health agencies. It could also look at what the federal government failed to do, such as follow its own pandemic plan or challenge the states’ border closures. 

    Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity?

    It would require a state-initiated Royal Commission to investigate the policies and actions of state governments. That includes the medical advice to justify state border closures, compulsory masks, curfews, lockdowns, other movement restrictions, the Covid zero fantasy, the separation of families, business closures, mandatory vaccination, and of course vaccine certificates. 

    Only a state Royal Commission could consider whether the loss of basic rights such as free speech, freedom of religion and the right to peaceful protest, or the suspension of parliament, were reasonable and proportionate. And unless the terms of reference were specific, the behaviour of state police would not be considered. 

    There is also a question of competence. Commissioners are generally retired judges; that is, elderly lawyers. A career as a barrister and judge is not necessarily a sound qualification for investigating complex non-legal issues. From my observation such people mostly don’t understand business or economics, and expecting them to come to grips with epidemiology and immunology might be optimistic. Add the possibility that they will overestimate the risk given their personal vulnerability to Covid, and an objective review is far from certain.  

    But let’s assume, for the sake of the fantasy, that a Royal Commission with broad terms of reference was established that is brave, competent, and thorough. Let’s even assume it is a joint federal-state commission. What might it achieve? 

    In my fantasy, it would name those responsible for doing so much damage to our liberal democracy, and spell out the crimes they committed. The patronising, sanctimonious, unscientific Chief Health Officers. The cynical, manipulative political leaders. The lying propagandists and political boosters. The cowardly, craven media. The senior police who sanctioned brutal repression of protests.  

    It would also offer a strong reminder of the fundamentals of a free society: that freedom and safety are not interchangeable; that personal responsibility should always trump government control; that avoiding deaths at any cost is not the role of the government; that executive government must be accountable to parliament.  And perhaps most importantly, that those who violate these principles must pay a price. 

    A Royal Commission is regularly mentioned as the best way to bring guilty politicians, bureaucrats, and other officials to account.

    Notwithstanding some indications to the contrary, particularly in Victoria, Australia is still subject to the rule of law.  An adverse mention by a Royal Commission might end a political or bureaucratic career, but it is not a conviction. And the reality is that virtually everything inflicted on Australians in the name of controlling Covid occurred within the law. Other than a few Victorian police perhaps, none of those named would be at risk of going to jail.

    Some say this calls for a special tribunal, like that used to try senior Nazis at Nuremburg. This applied the principle that some things can never be legal or right, whether or not they were within the law at the time. That same concept underpins the International Criminal Court. 

    Do the crimes perpetrated by our public health officials, politicians and others meet that standard of severity? No doubt they inflicted needless suffering and misery on millions of their fellow Australians, imposing irrational and arbitrary rules with heartless brutality. And while they claim to have saved deaths from Covid, they contributed to others from suicide and untreated conditions, and caused profound harm to countless careers, businesses, marriages, and childhoods. 

    The crimes that the International Criminal Court may consider are genocide, war crimes, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. The world’s longest lockdown certainly felt like a crime against humanity to Victorians, and it would be satisfying to hear the former Premier and Chief Health Officer argue, in their defence, why family visits were prohibited but not visiting brothels; why council gardeners could work but not private gardeners; and why the Black Lives Matter protest was not a superspreader event unlike anti-lockdown protests and watching a sunset from the beach. 

    Join Mailing List

    But that’s where the fantasy ends. A Nuremburg-style trial, even if it is warranted, would require special legislation. And a Royal Commission, even if established, is not likely to do no more than offer half-baked recommendations about preparing for the next pandemic. 

    Perhaps even worse, the pandemic showed that the commitment of Australians to democracy and freedom is wafer thin. They readily relinquished their rights and freedoms based on fear of a disease with a survival rate of 98 per cent, in the belief that the government would keep them safe.  

    This is a problem that will not be solved by a Royal Commission or Nuremburg type tribunal. Indeed, it would not be solved by making me Lord High Executioner and allowing me to deal with those on my list. It is a reflection of who we are as a nation.

    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.

    Enemy of the state

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    The clothes we wear may change, but the virtues and vices of mankind do not.

    As a historian of ancient Rome, I am in awe of the vast and rich sourcebook of knowledge it offers to guide us on what to heed and what to avoid.  Yet it appears that those we elect, rule over us with no regard for what we think, as they wield the proverbial sword of what they call justice.

    The warnings from the Australian government to the people around the proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill are reminiscent of the treatment meted out to those who dared to criticise rulers in ancient Rome; the caveat being that brutality of the highest order is not in play here. 

    However, this Bill comes on the back of four years of politicians instilling fear into the population, so it is not a standalone government edict. I argue that it is the trigger for the final battle in protecting our liberties and freedoms.

    Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation

    We were warned in no uncertain terms by state premiers that the virus would “hunt down the unvaccinated”, and if we continued to ignore the dictates from on high, Senator Jacqui Lambie was there to warn that the government would come after us “lock, stock and barrel” unless we complied. 

    Senator Jacqui Lambie

    Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live. Now, they are being primed to accept the most illiberal piece of legislation imaginable. And they will achieve this not just with help from the scaremongering media, but through hopes of raising an army of civilian snitches.

    When Lucius Cornelius Sulla was made consul in the early 80s BC and, later, dictator with the goal to restore the Roman Republican constitution, he told the people that if they obeyed him, he would introduce changes that would benefit them all. Should they decide not to, then punishment would be swift and savage.

    Those he considered enemies, or friends of enemies, were put on public proscription lists. In addition, he added a statement “detailing a prize for killers, rewards for informers, and penalties for concealment.”

    Guilt by association also copped a severe punishment: 

    “Giving or receiving hospitality, friendship, or a loan constituted grounds for accusation, and there were actually cases of condemnation for showing sympathy or merely travelling in company with a suspect.”

     The result of his unadulterated power?

    Too many people were harassed and harangued into being scared to live.

    “He took sole charge of shaping all the political institutions of the state in the way he wanted. For there was no longer any talk of laws, or elections, or sortition, since everybody was quaking with fear and lying low or keeping silent.”

    Forty years later, a group of three – the infamous triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus – conspired to punish their enemies in their quest for vengeance following the assassination of Julius Caesar. 

    They prepared a list in private, and even traded names of friends and foes of one another, surrendering their own relatives if necessary. 

    “These included brothers and uncles of the men who proscribed them and of their subordinates, if they had done anything to offend the leaders or these subordinates.”

    Join Mailing List

    In principle, what is the difference of intent between 80 BC and 2024 AD? 

    The Roman consuls proscribed those who offended them through brutal means, as was the order of the day. Our leadership designs legislation to incriminate us if we dare to offend them.

    The intent remains the same – to silence anyone with a different view. 
    The lesson here is more for the ordinary person than the egotistical politician, for they already know the rulebook inside out – how to manipulate the population. We, as people who merely want to live our lives in relative peace, must harness a sense of courage to stand against the machinery of an overbearing government, even if it means earning the moniker of being an enemy of the state.

    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. 

    We are Family

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    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 of government dependence – a difficult bond to break. 

    As mainstream media finally begins to report on the potential impact of falling birth rates around the world, the blame is laid squarely at cost of living and the lack of financial stability experienced by those of child-bearing age. The cost of housing is chiefly to blame here, but the broader cost of living leaves young Australians chained to their careers and busy lifestyles. Without a stable financial base, people in their reproductive years are putting off the decision to have children. 

    Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies but, in reality, government policy is increasingly hostile to building strong families. 

    Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families.

    Let’s begin by making one thing clear: subsidies for childcare are not a ‘family positive’ initiative. Parents cannot build strong families while raising their children is outsourced to daycare centres on the taxpayer dime. What these subsidies actually do is incentivise ‘workplace participation’ – hailed by activists as a metric of gender equality, but only really loved by big spending governments which rely heavily on income tax to fund their agendas. 

    The attack on genuine family time is mounted on other fronts too – with early childhood education increasingly touted as a necessary step in development, which by implication cannot be fulfilled at home. What’s more, state governments (which originally initiated Covid lockdowns) are now rushing to walk back public sector WFH arrangements to save the CBDs from their own policies! Thus, parents facing high cost of living are told their children need expensive early education and must not work from home. What choice do they have?  

    Governments often harp on about their ‘family focussed’ budgets and policies

    So what can be done? First, it’s time to bring back income splitting, where the combined income of a married couple is ‘split’ for tax purposes, which can be leveraged by a single household earner to reduce their tax obligations. While tax policy continues to punish higher earning sole providers while incentivising dual income arrangements, children will continue to miss crucial time with their parents at home. 

    Second, major reforms to childcare and the wider education system must be initiated. Childcare should be largely deregulated; the escalating cost is not providing improved value but is an increasing burden on families and taxpayers. Tax credits should be available to families who opt out of government funded schools as well, encouraging homeschool arrangements. 

    Join Mailing List

    Finally, massive spending and spiralling red tape at all levels of government must be reigned in, as they are fuelling the cost of living crisis that is crippling families. Ever increasing regulation on building codes, the drip feed of land supply and minimum standards for rental properties are drying up housing supply when more are desperately needed. Various taxes and duties create an unsustainable strain on small businesses and families, while increased spending drives inflation, sending mortgage repayments, utilities, food and fuel costs higher than wage rises. Who would want to start a family in that environment? 

    There can be no growth to our society if the family unit is being so critically undermined. How can we expect to raise a generation of independent thinkers and self sufficient upstarts if we can only afford to hand them over to the government while we work all day? If we can afford to have them at all.  

    Use a VPN, but don’t stop there

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    1

    The socialist government of Anthony Albanese is, once again, proposing legislation to de-anonymise, monitor and censor the Internet. From across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand I can smell the American eKaren Julie Inman Grant’s enthusiasm for this sort of authoritarian crackdown.

    As always the justification amounts to “Please! Won’t Someone Think of The Children!”, along with misdirections concerning child safety and insulating young minds from dangerous misinformation and disinformation. Coded language that really means truths that are inconvenient obstacles for leftist narratives.

    Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new. Leftists in Western democracies have been endeavouring to implement them for decades. The problem has been public resistance, with opponents able to point to China and its Great Firewall as a handy example of how such initiatives enable totalitarianism.

    There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught

    A massive public relations campaign has been underway across the West for many years, conducted by western governments, aligned NGOs and supra-national organisations such as the WEF, attempting to sway public opinion against the maintenance of civil liberties across the Internet. A recent example is the coordinated attacks upon Elon Musk’s 𝕏 platform, which has largely refused to comply with government demands for censorship and state surveillance of 𝕏 users: censorship and surveillance to which other social media platforms such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook have been only too willing to comply.

    Musk’s intransigence has attracted the ire of the authoritarian elites across the world, and not just Australia’s petulant eKaren Julie Inman Grant. From European Union Commissioner Thierry Breton’s jackboot demands for 𝕏 to comply with oppressive provisions of the bloc’s Digital Service (DSA) Act through Brazil’s Justice Alexandre de Moraes banning 𝕏 altogether in the country at the behest of the ruling leftist regime, to French president Emmanuel Macron luring Telegram CEO Pavel Durov to France so he could be arrested, the social media platforms allowing resistance to state censorship and surveillance have been put on notice.

    Nonetheless, the attacks on the social media giants are a sideshow. The leftist elites are well aware that compliance by the social media companies does not solve the underlying issue of users themselves circumventing surveillance and censorship on platforms simply by moving to alternative platforms that refuse to comply. 

    We’re seeing this already as frustrated users flee Facebook en masse for platforms that don’t block their content and suspend their accounts when they post about Hunter Biden’s transgressions. The more adventurous migrate to decentralised platforms (or federated as the terminology goes) that don’t even have a corporation behind them for governments to bully. Remember MySpace? When one social media platform loses prominence, another rises to take its place.

    The solution is to impose surveillance and censorship at the source rather than the destination: the users themselves. The preferred approach of the leftist elites is to impose technological restrictions and then to enact punitive punishments against those who circumvent them. Brazil has implemented this, with users caught using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to access banned sites such as 𝕏 facing fines of up to $US9,800 per infraction. China employs a similar technology/legislation regime though the punishments meted out to transgressors are considerably worse.

    What is a citizen opposed to this totalitarian crackdown on basic civil liberties to do? In a democracy the true solution lies at source: cease voting for leftwing political parties that promulgate and promote this hateful ideology. But if you happen to live under such a government such as Australia, there are technical mitigations available too. In recent days I’ve heard chatter similar to “just use a VPN. Everyone will have a VPN app installed on their device in two minutes” to bypass restrictions. It’s not that simple.

    Attacks on free speech and Internet privacy are nothing new.

    VPNs are great and everyone should use one. They are a trivially easy method of routing your traffic through another country, one with a better commitment to fundamental human rights. The problem is that VPNs are also trivially easy to detect. Detection by the state -such as in Brazil and China- is rapidly followed by state enforcement. I have heard sotto voce that the Australian Labor party intends such a ban on VPNs. Bring on the organ harvesting. 

    Fortunately for Aussies, people living under other repressive regimes have developed solutions. Technical advances from those on the side of freedom against the enforcement mechanisms of the leftists are in the ascendency, though it must be said there is no such thing as perfect security. The technique with the most value is obfuscation, a method of giving VPN traffic the appearance of being a different type of traffic, making it far more difficult to detect. The most mature and readily-available suite of sophisticated tools to obfuscate Internet traffic is the Tor network, a component of which the leftist elites endeavour to scare you about by using the bogeyman term Dark Net.

    Tor works by bouncing traffic from ingress nodes through intermediary nodes to exits nodes back onto the Surface Internet in order to obfuscate the origin, meaning the user. This comes at the cost of additional latency but Tor has an equally valuable feature: the facility to obfuscate the type of traffic with pluggable transports, better known as bridges. Two of the most popular are OBFS4 bridges running on Tor relays and Snowflake, which operates as a simple peer-to-peer browser extension. Alongside VPNs, both of these are technologies Australians would be well advised to utilise.

    Join Mailing List

    In the escalating technology war against Internet civil liberties, advances in AI analysis of obfuscated traffic poses the most critical risk. A simple VPN may suffice for Australian Internet users and I recommend using one. Tor is the next step up and you should start using that too. It’s available for all platforms and devices. 

    There are risks associated with all circumvention technologies but that always amounts to getting caught: following in the footsteps of other oppressive regimes the Australian Labor government is likely to discourage circumvention through VPNs and Tor with punitive penalties.

    And as I alluded earlier, technology is merely mitigation. The solution is to vote the nasty bastards enacting these attacks upon civil liberties out of office.

    Why We Should Oppose Government Efforts to Age Restrict Social Media

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    There are increasing efforts to mandate age restrictions for social media. These efforts have occurred at federal level with a proposed minimum age of 16, and in Victoria with a proposed minimum age of 14 with parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. My home state of South Australia is also considering something similar.

    This legislation is motivated by concerns about some of the negative effects of social media use on teenage mental health. I do not believe this type of legislation is the right solution to the problem and that it constitutes government overreach.  I am concerned about its effects on civil liberties and internet privacy along with how it may be implemented. 

    My first major concern is the effect on internet privacy. In the event that such legislation is strictly enforced, social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia. This will severely compromise internet anonymity, which is important as it allows people to more openly discuss uncomfortable but important issues and protects the identities of people who are at risk of political persecution. 

    Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility

    This is of particular concern given the increasing trend in Commonwealth countries of people being arrested for saying things online related to hot button political topics or that for some reason have been deemed offensive.

    There is also the issue of data privacy. Forcing people to hand over their ID involves the disclosure of sensitive personal data which could then be exposed in a data leak, stolen by hackers, or sold to third parties by the social media company itself.

    My second major concern is that such a law takes choice out of the hands of parents and increases government interference in the lives of families. All teenagers are different, and some are more mature than others. The decision to engage on social media should be made by parents, not the government.

    Ironically it seems there is a segment of parents asking for the legislation in an effort to outsource parental responsibility.  When some parents are asked why they don’t restrict social media for their children despite complaining about it, the conversation seems to go like this:

    Parent: I’m concerned that social media is harming my child’s mental health.

    Me: Why don’t you stop them from using social media or restrict its use?

    Parent: No. I can’t do that. I want my child to fit in and be popular!!!

    Me in my head: WTF?

    My third major concern is that the policy may have unintended consequences. Like many things, social media has both good and bad aspects, with the bad aspects more pronounced when used excessively. However, social media also allows people to interact with others regardless of how far away they are and to connect with like-minded people.

    This can be particularly beneficial to teenagers who live in remote communities, have family that lives far away, seek a family group chat, want to let the world know what is happening in their communities, or for some reason have limited opportunities to socialise in person.  

    For example, I recently had a friend who was committed to a psych ward. Social media allowed us to talk to each other when I couldn’t visit and outside of visiting hours. A policy of restricting social media would create a government-imposed one-size-fits -all approach affecting all teenagers that will not work for all. Such a policy simply doesn’t distinguish between excessive and moderate social media use.

    Social media companies will require ID verification for all participants to join their networks in Australia.

    My fourth major concern is what the government defines as social media. Not all social media is the same. I personally have Facebook, Discord and Signal. All these apps function differently despite falling under the umbrella of social media.

    Facebook mandates that people use their real name to create a profile. On Facebook you can create both public and private events, comment on things publicly, message people privately, and a range of other things. On Discord, you create a username and then can message people and join private and semi-public groups. 

    Signal works like text messaging, but you can create group chats and relies on the internet rather than phone data. Signal does not have public pages like Facebook. As someone who intends to become a parent in the future, I would approach all these apps differently and allow them each at different ages.

    Join Mailing List

    I would also like to point out that many social media sites already have age restrictions.  Facebook, for example, requires a minimum age to join of 13. There are also apps that you can get on phones and computers that limit social media use or block certain sites. 

    Given this, I believe the best alternative solution to this legislation would be increased parental responsibility surrounding social media, and social and societal support for parents who choose to limit excessive teen social media use.

    Whose Ethics make it Ethical

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    When I started my business 35 years ago, very few investment funds were describing themselves as ethical investors. 

    Some years later I joined an organisation of CEOs, business owners and senior executives that meets to share and discuss their challenges. I enjoyed our meetings right up until my group was required to listen to a speaker on ethics. When I asked for a definition of ethics and who decides what is ethical, I was told I was out of order.  Not long after that I was asked to leave the group. 

    Some funds then began describing themselves as sustainable investors. I wrote a column about it, asking who defines sustainable, and has anyone ever knowingly invested in a company that was unsustainable? There were letters to the editor criticising me. 

    It then became ESG, or Environmental, Social, and Governance. Still seeking definitions, I found it supposedly incorporates sustainable investing, responsible investing, impact investing and socially responsible investing. 

    Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better.

    I also found a claim that ESG criteria can “help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.” That sounded like the focus was on financial performance, which is good, but in fact it was not the case. The more I looked, the more I found it was all just virtue signalling. 

    Then came DEI, or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, which is all about how many women, black or disabled people are on the payroll. Not just virtue signalling, but bragging about it.  

    Funds that differentiate themselves like this are motivated by the desire to attract more investors and generate more fees for their managers. Furthermore, very few of those choosing to invest in these funds are using their own money; both the fund managers and their investors are deciding what is ethical or sustainable using other people’s money. 

    The problem is, most ESG funds deliver lower returns to investors. And, as I discovered, they don’t agree with each other about what it all means, and also don’t much like being questioned. 

    As it happens, I am an investor of my own money and regard myself as both ethical and sustainable. Moreover, I have no difficulty offering coherent definitions. 

    My favourite definition comes from former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who said, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.  In my view that’s also ethical. 

    As to what it means in practice, here are a few thoughts. 

    I will never reject an investment in coal unless there are better nuclear or hydro options, delivering cheaper and more reliable power. It is not sustainable to subject the community to the vagaries of expensive and intermittent wind and solar power, and it is grossly unethical to compel families in India to continue burning cow manure for fuel or force children to do their homework in the dark. 

    I will absolutely invest in forestry. Not only is it renewable, in Australia it is also totally sustainable. When the alternatives are importing timber from other countries or building in steel and concrete, it’s no contest. 

    Australian agriculture often generates meagre returns on investment, but larger operations utilising modern technology do better. Genetically modified crops, modern herbicides, precision farming and minimum or zero tillage are not only sustainable but also boost yields, leaving more land for conservation. There is absolutely nothing ethical about staying rooted in the past, using out-dated technology to produce food that some people cannot afford to buy. 

    Help investors avoid companies that might pose a greater financial risk due to their environmental or other practices.

    Some ethical funds say they refuse to invest in companies that harm animals, by which they mean those that use animals to determine whether pharmaceuticals or cosmetics adversely affect humans. By what ethical standard is it preferable to expose our loved ones to the risk of life-threatening or disfiguring harm? 

    As for things like tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, these are matters of personal choice. Whatever we might think of them, the ethical approach is to not interfere in the choices of others. I’d happily invest in them if the returns were adequate. And if it means protecting liberal democracy from authoritarianism, I’d certainly consider it ethical to invest in armament companies. 

    That leaves a fairly small unethical and unsustainable list.  Anything that funds or apologises for terrorism, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamism or corruption is on it.  I’m also wary of companies that foster a woke culture; not only are they hypocrites but ‘go woke, go broke’ is more than a slogan. 

    Join Mailing List

    But that’s just me – I don’t expect others to necessarily share my views, although it’s clear that an increasing number of people seem to be doing just that. For those with control over their own money, my suggestion is to simply invest in businesses that offer the best returns, and ignore those that virtue signal. You can then use the dividends or capital gains to help make a difference based on your own values.

    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

    Resisting centralist power – Part 3

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    0

    In a speech entitled, Rebuilding the Federation, Richard Court, then Premier of Western Australia, described the tide of centralism as follows:

    “All the things that the States do best are under attack from the empire builders in Canberra. The bureaucracy running the Federal education system, as you know, is large but it doesn’t teach any students. There is an equally large health bureaucracy which doesn’t treat any patients.”

    Court went on to make the point that the Constitution recognised that State governments were better placed to respond to local priorities. 

    Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations.

    The States are left with constitutional responsibility for education, health, housing, law and order, commerce and industry, transport, and natural resources including land and essential services. But Court noted that, with the help of the High Court, the Commonwealth now has almost complete control in some of these areas.

    Benefits of Federalism

    Those who live in the major population centres on Australia’s eastern seaboard may not understand the importance of local decision making in the same way that those who live in the regions and smaller States do. In a country as large and diverse as Australia it is very difficult for a political administration and bureaucracy based in a distant national capital to take full account of, and understand, the interests and needs of local communities.

    As a principle not only of government, but also of life, the best decisions are taken when all the parties to the decision know and understand the issues intimately. A federalist approach that seeks to allow States to exercise power in making decisions on local matters is infinitely better than centralised decisions at a distance. Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

    Economic Benefits

    The Productivity Commission has outlined the competitive benefits of federalism in improving performance in the Australian economy, saying:

    “The competitive dimension of federalism, which provides in-built incentives for governments to perform better across a variety of areas, is operating well.” 

    There is an inherent competitiveness between the States that should be encouraged. State governments have a vital role to play in creating the right environment to attract and retain capital. We live in a global market environment in which competition between States will only serve to make each of them more efficient.

    Those who framed the Constitution understood this and sought to embed it in both the spirit and letter of the document.

    By competitiveness, however, I mean real low cost, light regulation efficiency competitiveness, not taxpayer funded inducements to lure business from one State to another.

    Perhaps the most valuable attribute of successful federations is the way in which they lead to a disbursement of power that fosters democracy and restrains corruption and abuse. While the division of powers among the stakeholders may cause frustration for those who desire an unfettered capacity to determine the course of events, it does introduce important checks and balances to the political process.

    There is a creative tension that comes from the consensus building required to make a federation work, in the longer term serving both the individual and common interest.

    Join Mailing List

    Many of the most stable, productive and influential nations on earth are federations. The reason I am such a committed federalist is because it is by far the best way to govern a large and diverse country like Australia; far better than its alternative, centralism – power and law making centralised in one place. 

    Whilst it may seem counter-intuitive that six (or even eight), separate State service providers could be more efficient and cost effective than one big, centralized service provider, it is true nonetheless.

    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

    Windfall?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    0

    The Guardian recently said the quiet part out loud – the Coalition’s pivot towards nuclear energy is scaring away the big money that is backing renewables. 

    That’s right, the mere fact that the Federal Opposition (who aren’t fancied to win the next election mind you) has proposed nuclear energy for Australia is enough to put investors off backing renewable projects. And yes, we are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors. 

    While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables.

    We are constantly told that Australia is ripe for renewable energy – be it solar, wind or hydro. But the truth of the matter is that without unequivocal bi-partisan legislative support, private capital is unwilling to back projects even against the prospect of competition. That should tell you everything you need to know about the reality of the economics of renewables.  

    The Investor Group on Climate Change reported that ‘more than one’ major investor had decided to hold off on future investment decisions in Australia. General sentiment was that investors would prefer to back projects in jurisdictions with bi-partisan political support for a renewables-led transition to net-zero. 

    What is clear from these developments is that investing in renewable technology is not a vote of confidence in how the projects stack up. Rather, it’s simply an attempt to bet on government-backed guarantees, and once that guarantee is potentially threatened the investors flee. 

    We are at the point in the energy debate where The Guardian is now simping for big investors.

    To play devil’s advocate, nuclear technology may potentially suffer from similar issues. Due to the high upfront costs and long lead times of nuclear energy projects, even strong advocates of the technology freely admit that significant public funding would be needed to get projects off the ground and to induce private investment. It is unclear how competitive nuclear energy might be in the new energy market as well – would investors expect legislative guarantees to ensure returns? 

    Join Mailing List

    What is clear though, is that the threat of (or lack of) government intervention in the energy marketplace is destroying investor confidence. Be it renewables, potentially nuclear, or the ridiculous net-zero targets that are annihilating investment confidence in coal and gas, the sources that actually do the heavy lifting in the energy market.   

    While the battle of energy technologies will continue to rage, we can say one thing about the big money behind renewables. They aren’t betting on the tech, or on a technologically robust transition to net-zero. They are betting on a government guarantee to ensure their returns. 

    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

    123Page 1 of 3

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    The New UAE Corporate Tax

    Damon Hayhow - 0
    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is famous for, among other things, zero tax. That ended this year. The UAE now has a 9% tax...

    The Right To Keep and Bear Cash

    10 Therapeutic Applications For My Bulk-Purchased Superglue

    The Arguments and Rebuttals for Government Maintenance of Competition

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv