Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Random

    Government

    Home Government

    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

    The New Coalition?

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    While falling well short on some key issues, it’s been heartening at least to see the Federal Coalition leading the discourse and taking some risks on genuine reform. 

    Left in ruins after being swept from office in 2022, many commentators questioned the viability of the Liberal party.  But within two years they have surged back into relevance, and with a flavour less antithetical to libertarians.  

    It began early in 2023 when the National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum, and Dutton duly followed, despite some resistance within the Liberals. This crucial first step allowed Australians to see that Dutton’s Liberals were delineated from Labor, and despite healthy early polling for the ‘yes’ case, Dutton’s gamble paid off handsomely and the Albanese honeymoon ended abruptly. 

    The Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal.

    Then, whispers on vaping prohibition, super for housing, an overhaul of immigration, and of course the big one: nuclear power. Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey was even floating the idea of income splitting between household partners!  Recognising his lack of personability and charisma, Dutton has opted to take a series of policy reforms to the next election with an eye to vastly expanding the Coalition’s electoral map as its traditional base shrinks.  

    Lo and behold, they have already taken the lead in several recent national polls and, incredibly, Dutton overtook Albanese as preferred PM in the latest Resolve poll – something I thought I would never see. It may be that in time Dutton will again lose control of the narrative; Australians are typically sceptical of reform agendas from opposition (see Bill Shorten, 2019), but there’s some encouragement for libertarians here.

    It appears the unfolding political realignment is presenting the Liberals with an opportunity to reinvent themselves as the party of working Australians. The ‘teal wave’ of 2022, that also saw blue ribbon seats such as Higgins and Ryan fall to Labor and the Greens, was a blessing in disguise. Many of the nagging progressive moderates of the party were flushed out of metropolitan strongholds, leaving Dutton with no choice but to devise a new path to victory. Thus, faced with poor prospects with young voters and the opportunity to re-home the politically jaded working class, Dutton is unveiling his new coalition. 

    As libertarians, we still have important work to do. Firstly, the Coalition maintains terrible policy in areas such as online safety, while their shadow cabinet currently boasts the leftovers of a government that completely failed to effectively manage the budget for a decade. 

    The National Party declared its stance on the Voice referendum

    Secondly, the Liberal state divisions are much slower on the uptake, as evidenced by their staunch refusal to adopt Dutton’s nuclear proposal. Metropolitan centres still dominate their electoral prospects and the old risk averse attitude still prevails: in Queensland for example, LNP leader David Crisafulli is paralysed, terrified of losing an unlosable state election, while in Victoria John Pesutto and his inner city moderates still control the party. 

    Undoubtably, libertarians still have a major opportunity to shape public policy. While it’s encouraging to see the Coalition adopt a reform agenda with some sensible policy that promotes free choice and prosperity, they are still a long way from their classical liberal roots. At the state level, libertarians have a unique opportunity to help set the agenda and give voice to the aspirational working class. Imagine, for a moment, if the Liberal Party had spoken up on behalf of those campaigning against the excesses of Covid mania and mandates. Imagine also if they had meekly embraced bipartisanship on the Voice.

    Join Mailing List

    It is worth reflecting on the positive change we see in the Liberal Party. They are perhaps the most powerful vessel for libertarian policies, having proven under Dutton that they can take on the left and win. It’s indicative of our political influence in action. However, we must be merciless when they stray back towards populist authoritarianism.

    The Myth of Speed

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    8

    We are constantly told that Australia has a huge road toll. Every holiday break and long weekend there are reports of how many people were killed, amid inferences that this is a major and growing tragedy.  

    Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding. There is a never-ending campaign, complete with gory advertisements warning of lifelong injuries, telling us to slow down. The message never varies – below the speed limit is safe, above the limit is not. Indeed, we are told that even 1km/hr above the speed limit increases the likelihood of serious injury and death. Vacuous journalists blame speed for almost every accident they cover. 

    And should we fail to heed the message there are speed cameras, aerial monitoring, highway patrols and double demerit periods to remind us.  

    In reality, driving on Australian roads is safer than it has been for over fifty years. Road fatalities, both absolute and relative to the population, have been steadily falling.  Whereas in 1970 there were 3,798 road fatalities, equal to 30.4 fatalities per 100,000 people, in 2022 there were just 1,194 fatalities, a rate of 4.6 per 100,000. 

    Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads

    Most of the decline occurred prior to 2000 following the introduction of seat belts, improved road design, vehicle safety upgrades such as disc brakes and impact resistance, and limits on drink-driving. 

    But it has continued up to the present time: in the decade to 2012 the rate of deaths relative to population decreased by an annual average of 4.2%. In the ten years to 2022 it fell by an annual average of 1.9%. 

    The bottom line is, Australia’s road toll is a fraction of what it once was and continues to fall. Fewer people die in road accidents than from the flu or Covid. And yet, rather than celebrate this success, government perpetuates the fiction that things are bad and getting worse. Moreover, despite quite minor changes to speed limits over the period (slight increase on highways and slight reduction in the suburbs), it insists that excessive speed is the primary culprit.   

    All this while most of Europe, which has overall higher speed limits than Australia, has lower road death rates. That includes Germany, where there are no speed limits on major autobahns. 

    Responsibility for this myth lies with the National Road Safety Strategy, prepared every few years by transport and infrastructure bureaucrats from the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. For many years it has led a crusade with the broad aim of significantly reducing road trauma, resulting ultimately in zero deaths and serious injuries (which it defines as anyone admitted to hospital, irrespective of seriousness or the length of stay), by 2050. 

    It argues speed is a key element in all crashes, and that this necessitates lower speed limits and additional enforcement. State governments, which collect tens of millions in speeding fines, dutifully go along with it. 

    Equally constant is the assertion that the underlying cause is speeding.

    While very high speeds can obviously lead to more serious accidents, the data shows that deaths occur at any speed. Indeed, achieving zero deaths and injuries from road accidents is only feasible if everyone walks (even then, some would die of heart attacks). That would clearly be unacceptable to the community, which implicitly accepts a certain level of deaths and injuries as the price of convenient travel.

    The elevation of speed limits to icon status is both dishonest and absurd. Those responsible for setting limits, road safety experts and traffic engineers in the public service, are determining the trade-off between convenient travel times and the road toll for the entire community. If speed is truly the demon we are led to believe, they are essentially deciding how many people should die.  

    If this all sounds familiar, with memories of recent events during the Covid epidemic, that is not surprising. The gross overstating of a public health risk; a determination to mitigate that risk without regard for economic or social consequences; an assumption that the public are not competent to make their own decisions about bearing that risk. It’s all the same. 

    Join Mailing List

    As with Covid, it amounts to a classic case of gross bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who ought to determine the trade-off between travel convenience and the road toll. (There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula.) It is the public, not public health bureaucrats, who should decide whether the road toll warrants greater priority than other causes of death and disease. 

    Nobody wants to increase deaths and injuries on the roads, but a risk-free society is not a rational public health objective. Road users are not sinful children and should not be viewed as a source of government revenue, and public health bureaucrats should not be allowed to play God.

    Trump promised libertarians. Here we go!

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    As I write, the American Left’s echo chamber is strangely silent, no doubt stunned at the announcement.

    Let’s set the scene: Across the swampy stench of Washington D.C., where the only things typically ‘efficient’ are the lobbyists’ ability to secure pork barrel projects, comes a revivifying breeze. It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket. Here’s Elon, not content with electric cars, interplanetary colonisation, and brain chips, deciding to take a crack at what might be his most Sisyphean task yet: making the government efficient.

    Now, imagine the reactions. The Left, already on edge from Milei’s ‘Afuera!’ chants across the pond, are positively quivering. ‘Elon’s gone too far this time!’ and ‘Ron Paul will be the end of us!’ they’ll wail, as if expecting the sky to fall because someone dared to challenge the Deep State. They see visions of chainsaws to the bureaucratic red tape, of waste being not just reduced but annihilated. To them, it’s as if Musk has invited a von Mises vampire into the house of government – not because he’s inherently evil, but because he’s going to drain it of all its toxic, contagious blood.

    This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government.

    And you can understand why Elon might want to spice things up. He’s a libertarian now in all but having ‘I Love Hayek’ tattooed on his forehead. Consider his recent revelations. The government fined Space X $140,000 for the crime of spraying fresh water on his launching pad to cool the rockets on take-off. We’re talking Brownsville, Texas, which annually receives 700+ mm of fresh water just in rain alone but, no, Elon’s fresh water is an environmental disaster. 

    Then there was the ensnaring Catch-22 by the Kafkaesque bureaucracy. One law forced him into DEI hires of illegal immigrants while the other law bound him to only employ US citizens for defence security reasons. Cop that! Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. No wonder Elon’s now a libertarian and turned to the Grand-Poo-Bah of freedom fighters in the good doctor from Texas.

    And why not? If you’ve ever tried to navigate the bureaucratic labyrinth of even Australian federal departments, you’ll understand why this might just be the revolution Americans need. Here’s Ron Paul, the man who once asked, ‘Where in the Constitution is there any authority for Congress to fund education?’, now potentially wielding the scalpel to slice through the Gordian Knot of government department duplication.

    Consider this: the US has departments that could be triplets in their redundancy. There’s the Federal Department of Education, the State departments of education, and the local government school district departments. What the first two do, apart from employing teacher union reps, no one knows. And then there’s the US Department of Energy, which might as well be named the Department of Irony given its track record on energy efficiency. Both could do with a severe diet and who better than Dr Ron Paul, the perennial advocate for limited government, to serve up the meal plan?

    It’s not just any change; it’s the kind of disruptive innovation that could only come from someone who thinks space travel should be as common as a trip to the supermarket.

    This isn’t just about cutting fat; it’s about rethinking the very structure of government. Elon Musk, with his penchant for first-principles thinking, might just be the catalyst needed to ask: Why do we have all these agencies? What are they actually achieving? And most importantly, do we need them at all?

    Hell, government might get a new three-letter agency: KPI.

    Oh, the fear and loathing this move will garner from the financially-affected Left. They will see this as the first domino leading to the end of civilisation as we know it, the sky will fall and we must warn the king and the rest of the town! They’re terrified of the idea that government might actually serve the people, not the bureaucrats. They envision a world where their pet projects might get the axe, where the gravy train of government waste might finally derail.

    Gone, the mercantilism causing democratic drift. Gone the corporatism and consultants with their snouts in the troughs.

    Join Mailing List

    Yet, for those of us who dream of a government that functions with the precision of a Tesla assembly line, this is a moment of hope. If Ron Paul and Elon Musk can bring to the government the same disruptive innovation seen in SpaceX or Tesla, we might just see the start of a Great Revolution in America, resulting in a government that’s lean and, mostly, out of our lives.

    All hinges on a Trumpian victory.

    As we Australians watch the greatest spectacle on Earth, mindful of our observer-status but somehow still drawn like a moth to flame, let’s raise a glass to the potential end of American decline. And here’s to Elon, who operates by first principles, and Ron, as principled as they come and possibly entering his last act of public service. May these tenacious two be poised to make the Department of Government Efficiency not just a dream, but a reality.

    Afuera!

    This article first appeared in the Spectator Australia.

    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

    Why You Should Oppose the Government’s Attempt to Censor the Sydney Church Stabbing Video

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

    If you have been following the issue of freedom of expression in Australia, you will be aware of the efforts of the government to censor the Sydney church stabbing video on X (but not mainstream media websites) via a court order. The court order has since been overturned although what will happen next is still uncertain.

    It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders.  X is currently willing to comply with that, but the Australian government also wants to restrict what the whole world can see. 

    Below I will offer some reasons why you should oppose the censorship efforts of the Australian government, including both within Australia and globally. 

    Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect

    One reason given by the Australian government for its current censorship efforts is that the video in question is considered to be indecent, confronting and violent. The problem with censoring videos on this basis is that it sets a dangerous precedent that would enable the government to censor a wide range of media; it is a slippery slope. Whether a video is considered indecent, confronting or violent is subjective and a matter of individual interpretation.

    Regardless, even if a video is ‘indecent’, ‘confronting’ or ‘violent’, that is not sufficient reason to tell someone they cannot watch it. That decision should be up to the individual, not the government. 

    In any case, contrary to what may be portrayed by the mainstream media and government, government censorship is not about protecting the public but instead gives the government cover to selectively censor things it finds embarrassing or doesn’t want the public to know about or talk about.

    Many confronting and violent videos are in fact matters of public interest; a prominent example being the Afghan Files, which were a collection of videos that depict war crimes committed by the Australian Army in Afghanistan. When these videos were publicly reported, the Australian government attempted to censor them and even raided Australian media organisations. The only difference was that they used the ‘justification’ of national security rather than public decency.

    When considering any sort of law or government policy, it is always important to consider how such a law or policy might be misused by a stupid person or weaponised by an evil person. From my perspective, I consider the government to be a rather stupid and evil organisation.

    It is not unusual for governments around the world to ask social media platforms to remove certain content from within the confines of their own borders.

    An issue of major concern which is often subject to censorship is footage of police shootings. These videos often depict police brutality and misconduct and are an important matter of public interest. If the Australian government can establish that it is acceptable to censor videos on the basis of being confronting and depicting violence, footage of police shootings will be at high risk of government censorship.

    ‘Confronting’ and ‘violent’ videos can be a primary source of information. They allow people to know exactly what happened, as cameras don’t lie. Censoring such videos forces people to rely on secondary sources of information such as the mainstream media and government, both of which are often biased and leave out critical details without allowing the public to verify their information.

    Preventing the spread of extremism is also used to justify the censorship of the Sydney church stabbing. However, censoring the video does not address the root causes of Islamic extremism within segments of Muslim community, or prevent people from knowing about the incident. 

    Join Mailing List

    Ironically, the attempt by the government to censor the video has triggered the Streisand Effect and brought more attention than if it had just been allowed to fade into obscurity.

    As for wider implications, if the Australian government has the power to censor the internet globally, other governments around the world will inevitably seek to do the same. This includes repressive nations that already have a strong desire to censor the World Wide Web such as China, Russia and many more.

    Opposing the recent censorship efforts of the Australian government isn’t just important for protecting freedom of expression and information in Australia, but it is also important for the entire world.

    A Nation of Takers

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    1

    One of the many inequities of Australia’s welfare system is the exclusion of family homes from the means test. Recipients of age or disability pensions can own houses worth millions of dollars while remaining eligible for pensions funded by the taxes of people who cannot afford to buy a house at all. 

    In private, many politicians agree that excluding the family home leads to unfair consequences. However, neither side of politics is willing to change it. There are simply too many Australians who insist they are entitled to a pension. 

    It is much the same with the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). It is widely known to be extensively rorted, with scheme providers charging participants several times what they charge non-participants for the same service. It is also well known that many people on the scheme are only mildly disabled, if at all. And yet, even as the cost threatens to bankrupt the country, even minor reforms prompt screams of protest. 

    Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries

    Also threatening the national budget is the cost of childcare. It is no longer sufficient to keep small children happy while their parents are at work; it is now early education. Advocates have created a narrative that children who remain home with their mothers are somehow deprived. Childcare is rapidly becoming yet another entitlement to be funded by the government.  

    There was a time when Australians liked to think of themselves as self-reliant and quick to help each other, while receiving welfare was an embarrassment and an indication of failure. 

    This has been replaced by a culture of entitlement in which there is absolutely no compunction about receiving money from the government. Many people insist they have a right to a pension simply because they have paid taxes, despite that never having been the situation in Australia. Even those who have never paid tax (apart from GST), or who frittered their savings away on gambling and ‘substance abuse’, demand it. 

    Some of this thinking is attributable to the fact that a proportion of immigrants originate from countries which have contributory pension schemes. They assume it is no different in Australia. But a far bigger factor is the entitlement mentality. If someone else can get a pension, I should also get it. If someone else is receiving benefits via the NDIS, it’s only fair that I obtain them too. In fact, if there is money being handed out for anything, I’m entitled to it. 

    There is no longer any disgrace in receiving government benefits. Indeed, a thriving industry of accountants and Financial Planners specialises in rearranging their client’s affairs to meet eligibility requirements for government benefits, especially pensions and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. 

    There is even intergenerational welfare, with extended families living on welfare their entire lives. This is particularly the case with certain indigenous communities, while “Lebanese back” is apparently sufficient to qualify for a disability support pension.

    Some admit that ‘government money’ originates with taxpayers, but it makes little difference. The sense of entitlement defies guilt, facts and reason, hence the reluctance of politicians to make changes for fear of losing votes. Even worse, many politicians use taxpayers’ money to buy votes. 

    The sense of entitlement owes it origins to the growth of the welfare state over the last half century, together with the rise in taxation that accompanied it. Although Australia has had an age pension for more than a century, disability assistance, childcare subsidies, unemployment benefits, medical benefits and many other handouts and subsidies are far more recent. 

    It has led to the perception of an all-pervasive government with unlimited resources. Moreover, if you go about it the right way, money can be extracted from it. 

    Also a factor is the level of income tax. Getting something back from the government to compensate for the amount of tax paid makes sense. Australia relies more heavily on individual income taxes than other developed countries, on average taking 25% of earnings. Plenty of people see little benefit for themselves. 

    Join Mailing List

    Obviously, this situation is unsustainable in the long term. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” 

    Australia is already living beyond its means, with budget deficits year after year. It is also actively discouraging industries that support the economy – think coal exports, gas exports, sheep exports – while increasing energy costs. It obviously cannot last. 

    What the country needs is a government that encourages self-reliance rather than dependence on the state. Unfortunately, there is no sign of that.

    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

    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. 

    The Greatest Threat to Democracy

    By
    James Hol
    -
    0

    As 5 November fast approaches, anti-Trump rhetoric is reaching nauseating levels.

    Democrats and the media – but I repeat myself – have made the central focus of their 2024 campaign about how Donald Trump is “the greatest threat to democracy” in history. They claim the 45th President is a tyrannical dictator-in-waiting, but forget one thing: he was the 45th President.

    During Trump’s presidency, he had ample opportunity to become the totalitarian dictator the left so badly wants him to be, yet his record was exactly the opposite.

    TRUMP THE PEACEMAKER

    While Trump often claims he is the only President in the last 72 years not to be involved in war, this is not exactly true. However, he did not meaningfully engage in military conflict during his term.

    The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them.

    Technically, the power for the US to declare war rests solely with Congress. A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force. This is how “conflicts” such as the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan wars occurred without proper, constitutionally required, authorisation – even though they were full-scale wars and are always referred to as wars.

    Other presidents have also been heavily involved in the escalation of foreign conflicts, the current Administration’s heavy financing of Ukraine being one such example. Trump, on the other hand, used the military sparingly but effectively and demanded other countries pay for US protection – creating a financial disincentive for war. Trump’s only real use of the military was quickly cleaning up the ISIS conflict he inherited.

    While Trump may have been involved in military engagements, he certainly tops the list as the most peaceful US President since World War II.

    TRUMP THE DEMOCRAT

    A common theme among dictators is the centralisation and concentration of power. Trump has been an advocate of states’ rights, pledging “to make states the laboratories of democracy once again” during his 2017 inauguration speech. During his Administration’s Covid response, he largely allowed the states to handle their own policies. During a time when most political leaders looked to seize power, he sought to relinquish it.

    But where Trump advanced states’ rights most was in his many judicial appointments: appointing judges and justices who recognised the policy-making power that resided in the hands of the states. One consequence of this was in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned the faulty premise that prevented states from regulating abortion.

    Contrary to popular belief, Roe v Wade had little to do with abortion and everything to do with states’ rights. No matter your view on abortion, if the Constitution says it is subject to state regulation, that’s what the Supreme Court should confirm.

    When it comes to executive orders, Trump averaged 55 per year, far more than the one or less per year of the first six presidents but a lot less than the 307 per year that Franklin D. Roosevelt – who is an often-highly regarded President – averaged. Even the much-beloved John F. Kennedy averaged 75 executive orders per year. Neither of those men are referred to as dictators.

    In fact, Trump’s use of executive orders sits almost exactly on the average of all presidents combined, which includes the early presidents who signed almost none. That’s nowhere near the level you would expect of someone with dictatorial tendencies.

    2020 HINDSIGHT

    But what about the 2020 Election? That is where Trump showed his true colours, according to his haters. And while Trump certainly is not the most gracious loser, he was completely within his rights to question and contest the legitimacy of the results: it is the right of all political participants. Hilary Clinton did it in 2016 and Al Gore did it in 2000 – both Democrats.

    The difference between Hilary Clinton’s denial of the 2016 results and Donald Trump’s denial of the 2020 results is that Trump was right: the 2020 election was rigged.

    The traditional media, social media and the FBI teamed up to ensure the Hunter Biden laptop story never saw the light of day before the election. Had that story been given its proper coverage, or even just not suppressed – people were literally prevented from posting about it on Twitter and other social media platforms – we would have likely seen a different result. If that isn’t rigging an election, someone tell me what is. Let’s not even get into the fact that several states used widespread mail-in ballot voting without the proper legislative approval to do so.

    FELONY OUTRAGE

    But Donald Trump is a convicted felon! How could anyone support that, the indoctrinated say, while simultaneously claiming that Trump is out to imprison his political opponents without a shred of irony.

    Trump was not convicted of paying “hush money” to a pornstar, there is no crime in a non-disclosure agreement. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of incorrectly filling out business documents, a misdemeanour offence in New York meriting a similar punishment to a speeding fine or other trivial traffic offence.

    The New York District Attorney (NYDA) managed to convince 12 New York progressives that it was a felony by nebulously claiming that Trump incorrectly completed the business forms in order to commit another crime; it was not necessary for the NYDA to actually indicate what that other crime was, nor for the jurors agree on that other crime. Not to mention, the NYDA relied solely on the evidence of Michael Cohen, a disgruntled former Trump employee with an axe to grind.

    A worrying modern departure from this constitutional requirement has been general resolutions from Congress authorising the continuing use of military force.

    Had it been any other person, the NYDA would have settled for a misdemeanour offence, if they had even bothered to prosecute it at all.

    FACISMO AMERICANO

    Finally, the pièce de resistance of the anti-Trump rhetoric: he is a Nazi. The kind of opposition that, if repeated often enough, might just lead someone to be justified in taking a shot at him. I mean, we’d all kill Hitler, right?

    I don’t have enough words to debunk every single instance where Democrats, or their media allies, have called Trump a Nazi, so I will focus on the most recent: Trump held a rally at Madison Square Garden. So what is the connection? Well, in 1939, a group of American Nazis also held a rally there and, well, that’s it. What’s more, Madison Square Garden actually moved location in 1968, so Trump’s rally was not even at the same location as the 1939 Nazi rally.

    Even before the rally had begun, mainstream media pundits were flapping their jowls with disgust, drawing comparisons between the 1939 rally. I wonder if these same propagandists are as concerned that Andrea Bocelli is scheduled to hold Nazi concerts there in just over a month. And these propagandists must be shocked to learn that the New York Knicks plan to host 38 Nazi games there over the upcoming NBA season; maybe they should rename them the Nazi Knicks.

    Join Mailing List

    VOTE TRUMP

    The last decade has been filled with lie after lie about Trump, to the point where even the most ardent Trump supporter probably believes at least one of them. Looking back on pre-politics Trump, who was often portrayed in a positive light, seems like another time completely. And there will be a time when propagandists will point to Trump as being “not so bad after all”, like they do with George W. Bush now – even though they said similar things about him during his presidency.
    Given the Libertarian Party has failed to nominate a libertarian candidate and Robert F. Kennedy Jr has dropped out of the race (although he will still appear on the ballot in many states, including the key states of Michigan and Wisconsin), I urge all American readers to vote Trump this Tuesday. Don’t stay home: vote.

    The Art of the Deal

    By
    James Hol
    -
    1

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

    MAKE AMERICA LIBERTARIAN AGAIN

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

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

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

    THE THREE PERCENT

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

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

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

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

    THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE

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

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

    Join Mailing List

    TAKING THE L

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


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

    123Page 1 of 3

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    Reassessing Australian Judges’ Role in Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal...

    Ted Hui - 0
    Historical BackgroundAs an Australian legal practitioner with Hong Kong roots, I am compelled to address a critical issue: the participation of retired Australian judges...

    A Different Way to Scratch Your Liberty Itch

    University River

    MUST-WATCH VIDEO: Friday Funny

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv