Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Government

    Home Government Page 2

    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    This has been replaced by a culture of entitlement in which there is absolutely no compunction about receiving money from the government.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

    The Arguments and Rebuttals for Government Maintenance of Competition

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    This week the US Federal Court handed-down its decision in the United States of America et al v Google LLC, in which the US Government challenged Google for using exclusionary monopolistic behaviour to deny its rivals access to distribution channels provided by Apple and Samsung. Google lost but may appeal.

    Formidable, straight-shooting American libertarian, Hannah Cox, raised some interesting points in her Newsweek opinion piece Google Is No Monopoly. It’s Widely Used Because It’s The Best about competition law – what Americans call anti-trust law. 

    This is the area of law which deals with maintaining competition by determining whether companies wield monopolistic-like behaviour to inhibit competition, as well as protecting consumers.

    Knowing whether a policy is inside or outside the world of libertarianism can be a close fought thing at the best of times. As Justin Amash, a prominent American libertarian who just lost his bid for the US Senate in Michigan, said “Libertarians spend so much time arguing over who is the purest libertarian that they forget to work together to advance liberty.” 

    But define the very edges of libertarianism we must, and competition law seemed ready for a battle.

    Hannah took the corporation’s side of the debate, as the purist, to argue ‘market forces should maintain competition not government.’ Sounds libertarian, right? 

    But nagging doubt afflicted me. So, this article is me nailing my colours to the mast in countering “sometimes, rarely, market forces create monopolies which bring competition to a halt. When this happens, government must act as referee and deal with the monopoly to reinstate the free market.”

    So here are her arguments and my rebuttals.

    ARGUMENT #1 “MONOPOLY MEANS ONE”

    Hannah challenges any assertion that Google is a monopoly. She says, “In fact, there are over 30 other search engines in the world that are dedicated solely to search functionality, including Yahoo!, Bing and Duck, Duck, Go.” If there are many search engines, even just two, Google can’t be a monopoly. The ‘mono’ in monopoly means one.

    The mistake some libertarians make is to argue big government is the only potential agent for coercion in society. 

    REBUTTAL #1 “MONOPOLY IS CONTEXTUAL”

    My understanding of the US Sherman Act is that it focuses on “monopoly-like behaviour”, not whether a company is strictly speaking a monopoly. So, whether Google is a monopoly is irrelevant.

    Second, “monopoly” is defined in OxfordReference.com as “The situation where one company controls all or a substantial majority of a market.” 

    That is, substantial majority, not 100%.

    In the US search engine market, Google has 88.14% of annual searches. In the court case, they said 90%. Bing is #2 with 6.79%. Yahoo! And DuckDuckGo come in at #3 and #4 with 2.63% and 2.55% respectively. 

    All other players have less than 1% including Baidu, a Chinese search engine, and Yandex, a Russian rival. 

    88.14% is clearly a “substantial majority of the market. 

    So my rebuttal is that a monopoly doesn’t have to be present, just monopoly-like behaviour.

    If Google had 99.99999% of the market and there was one other player at 0.00001%, Cox would continue to argue Google is not a monopoly. That makes no sense. 

    ARGUMENT #2 “EXCLUSIVE ACCESS IS NOT MONOPOLISTIC”

    Hannah then argues that Google has just provided more convenience than its rivals, or better access, implying distribution channels aren’t a seismic advantage. She’s essentially saying securing exclusive access is not monopolistic.

    REBUTTAL #2 “EXCLUSIVE ACCESS IS MONOPOLISTIC”

    When you break down what she’s saying, it’s that Google is just more convenient to access. But the converse must also be true: that Google’s competitors Yahoo!, Bing and DuckDuckGo are more inconvenient to access. In commerce, convenience matters. There are thousands of markets where convenience is the deciding factor in commercial success. 

    Imagine two identical retailers, one with parking and one without. The one with parking will outcompete the other because customers have more access to it. Or think of marketing channel access like a waterpipe: if there are two pipes into town, one owned by Apple and the other Samsung, and Google pumps its water through those two pipes, Hannah would have you believe that it is no big deal for DuckDuckGo water to be accessed by walking 10 km and carrying it in a bucket on your head.

    Convenience matters. Access matters. Securing exclusive access at the expense of your rivals is monopolistic. 

    ARGUMENT #3 “DISTRIBUTION DEAL IS EVIDENCE OF SUPERIOR NEGOTIATION AND INTELLIGENCE”

    Then Cox continues with the following: “Being smart enough to negotiate such deals simply makes Google better at its job.”

    REBUTTAL #3 “DISTRIBUTION DEAL IS EVIDENCE OF MORE MONEY”

    Maybe.

    Is this Hannah inadvertently arguing that Google has a monopoly of high IQ negotiators?

    Putting that aside, what Hannah omits from her article is that Google had to pay Apple and Samsung billions for the rights to those distribution channels. So, Google spent billions to deny their competitors access. These billions are war-chests their rivals don’t have due to exclusive dealing.

    There’s a timeline of cause and effect to consider in the industry. Here’s a list of search engines and the year they were founded:

    1994 WebCrawler

    1994 Lycos

    1994 Infoseek

    1995 Yahoo! with AltaVista

    1998 Google

    2008 DuckDuckGo

    2009 Bing

    So Google joined the market after Yahoo!. 

    By 2002, it overtook Yahoo! for searches per annum and has been in the #1 position since.

    Perhaps its search algorithms were superior. No problems there; that’s competition.

    But since then Google has locked in agreements with Apple that Google be the default search engine on its devices. 

    When Samsung took up Android, Google repeated the process.

    Here are the real figures. Google pays Apple between $8 billion and $12 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Apple devices, including the iPhone, iPad, and Mac.

    Google reportedly is paying Samsung $8 billion over 4 years for similar access.

    Let’s call that $20 billion in total, and recurring over various intervals.

    Can Yahoo!, Bing and DuckDuckGo afford this?

    Yahoo! is owned by Verizon which, as at Q2 FY2024, had $17.2 billion in cash or cash equivalents.

    Bing is owned by Microsoft which, as at Q3 FY2024, had $130 billion in cash or cash equivalents.

    DuckDuckGo is a private company with speculated cash of $100 million in 2021.

    Therefore, Google has effectively shut-out Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo, the #2 and #4 in the market. Exclusionary actions like this emphasise the monopolistic nature of Google’s claim in search.

    ARGUMENT #4 “NO HARM CAUSED BY DOMINANT POSITION”

    Cox further argues that “The company has in no way harmed consumers, defrauded anyone, or even acted in an unfair way toward their competition.” 

    REBUTTAL #4 “HARM CAUSED BY DOMINANT POSITION”

    I’m surprised any libertarian would argue Big Tech has harmed no-one.

    I’ve just been through how Google uses exclusionary channel agreements to shut-out Yahoo! and DuckDuckGo. This seems unfair at first instance.

    Does Google defraud or misinform? Yes. 

    Douglas Murray famously challenged John Anderson to type “white couple” into Google and see the results. Google have since changed the bias in their algorithm so it’s not so obvious, but the following results demonstrate the bias still lingers.

    As at 7 August 2024, when you query Google images for “black heterosexual couple” and review the first 20 results, here’s what you get:

    • Black heterosexual couple: 17
    • Black homosexual couple: 2
    • Mixed heterosexual couple: 1

    And when you query Google images for “white heterosexual couple” and review the first 20 results, here’s what you get:

    • White heterosexual couple: 13
    • Why Google Images searches aren’t racist: 2
    • Mixed heterosexual couple: 5

    Santa Clara University reported that typing “Asian girls” resulted in Google’s algorithm yielding pornographic and highly sexualised results.

    In 2018, NBC reported that typing “black girls” would yield similar results.

    Much has been reported about political bias as well.

    US Government challenged Google for using exclusionary monopolistic behaviour to deny its rivals access

    Is that harm, or misinformation or fraud?

    ARGUMENT #5 “BIG ONLY MEANS POPULARITY”

    Hannah then backgrounds us about the ‘consumer welfare standard’, Robert Bork and political factional differences between Republicans and Democrats. 

    She goes on to criticise those who think ‘big is bad’ and that “Becoming big merely means it is popular and offers a product or service consumers quite like.” 

    REBUTTAL #5 “BIG CAN MEAN POPULARITY WITH COERCION TO FOLLOW”

    The mistake some libertarians make is to argue big government is the only potential agent for coercion in society. I’d argue, unlike Hannah, to start with any big organisation. Big brings power and economic clout, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be from government. 

    Hannah is partially right when she asserts becoming big merely means it offers good products. That’s how their ascendency begins. But what happen thereafter? They become smug in their economic security, their innovation ossifies and they tend to monopolistic behaviour designed to protect their fortress. This is a process from birth to death, from innovation to stagnation, that applies to individuals, businesses, churches, political parties, charities and even nation states.

    Libertarians must think clearly about what they want government to provide and not provide. We are clear that we want government in defence, police and the courts. I would add it has a role to ensure monopolistically behaving companies, in the rare times that occurs, are checked. There is a role for government to ensure competition is maintained. 

    But I’ll leave the last say to a couple of libertarian greats:

    On the issue of capitalism leading to monopoly, classical liberal Milton Friedman wrote: “There is a widespread belief that free markets tend to lead to excessive concentration of economic power. This belief is not without justification. There are important cases where free markets themselves tend to produce a monopoly.”

    Join Mailing List

    And the great Thomas Sowell went straight to activity which impedes competition, saying “There is a legitimate concern about businesses using their market power to stifle competition. Antitrust laws should be enforced to ensure that competition remains vigorous.”

    Caution is required applying competition law. But if rivals are being denied valuable consumer access by the #1 player sitting on 88% of the market share, I think the government referee can blow the whistle.

    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 Sunk Cost Fallacy Drives Authoritarian Policies

    By
    Jess Colby
    -
    0

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

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

    Example 1: 

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

    Example 2: 

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

    What is authoritarian policy and what drives it?

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

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

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

    How is sunk cost fallacy relevant to authoritarian policies?

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

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

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

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

    The War on Drugs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Authoritarian Covid Response:

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

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

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

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

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

    Join Mailing List

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

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

    The implications of sunk cost fallacy driving authoritarian policies

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

    Childcare – Why should you pay for it?

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Starting before they are born, our governments spend a lot of money on children. 

    The Commonwealth budget for education alone is $67 billion, and in NSW $24 billion. Add the other states and territories, plus health care, and as the saying goes, pretty soon you’re talking real money. 

    While our society obviously values children highly, it is rare that anyone questions why so much of their cost is socialised. Having children is, after all, a choice. Other lifestyle choices do not attract such taxpayer generosity.

    Among the taxpayers who provide the funds are many who do not have children themselves. Some are yet to start a family, while others have chosen not to have them. But there are also those who, for various reasons, would very much like to become parents but cannot. 

    A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money, but a particularly convincing case is required to justify compelling those who cannot have children to pay for other people’s children. It’s like obliging paraplegics to pay for the running shoes of the able bodied. 

    The government thinks there is a strong case for childcare. It wants women to return to the workforce as soon as possible, so they resume paying tax and contributing to government revenue. With state and federal governments all addicted to spending more than they collect, they have a strong incentive to increase taxpayer numbers. 

    The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce, the more they retain their work skills. This is presented as a benefit to the women, as women who return to work more quickly typically earn higher incomes. However, they also pay more tax. 

    For the mothers of the children, the case is not so clear. Some women are obviously career oriented and anxious to return to the workforce as soon as possible. However, there are many who would prefer to care for their children themselves, especially while they are small, rather than entrust them to strangers in childcare facilities. Motherhood is a powerful instinct, and most jobs are rarely more engaging than raising a child. 

    The government also argues that the less time women are out of the workforce.

    The key reason most do not remain at home is economic: single income families with children typically struggle to pay a mortgage or rent plus general living expenses, vehicle expenses and the rest. 

    The underlying cause of this is government policies, particularly high income taxes, excise on essentials such as fuel, and the regulation and taxes that lead to expensive housing. Remove these and it would be a lot easier to live on one income. 

    From the point of view of the children, the case for childcare is even less compelling. Mothers have been caring for their children for thousands of years and have not recently become incompetent. 

    But we are told that it is no longer sufficient to simply keep children safe, happy and entertained while their parents are at work; the children must now be educated by qualified early childhood educators. It is now known as early childhood education and care (ECEC).

    Moreover, whereas childcare workers were once just sensible, caring people, most with children or grandchildren of their own, they must now hold post-school – and sometimes even university-level – qualifications. Mothers who have successfully raised four children of their own cannot become childcare workers unless they have obtained the appropriate qualification, while those who have a qualification but no prior childminding experience are fine.

    There has also been a ratcheting up of regulation of the physical environment, the programs and routines offered, plus the ratio of staff to children in childcare centres. 

    For the most part this has been driven by middle-class parental guilt. That is, parents seeking to justify the decision to place their children in childcare are demanding standards that allow them to believe their offspring are receiving a better start in life than if they stayed at home. It makes them feel better about leaving the kids with someone else. 

    Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that these standards are enhancing children’s outcomes. This was conceded in the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Childcare and Early Childhood Learning. The evidence indicates that the only children who benefit from ECEC are from dysfunctional households, such as those where substance abuse is an issue. 

    Furthermore, the ramped-up regulation and credentialism have made childcare seriously expensive. Even moderately well-paid parents baulk when the cost is almost as much as they can earn by going to work. For the poorest parents, especially single mothers who have a strong need to return to work, it is simply out of reach.  

    A strong case is always necessary to justify spending other people’s money,

    Childcare advocates, especially those with a pecuniary interest, are seeking to convince the government to implement a universal ECEC system, based on recognising early childhood education as a fundamental need. Naturally they claim this should be provided at minimal cost to parents, arguing it would give children the support they need to thrive into adulthood, while parents, particularly women, would be better able to balance work and care responsibilities.

    This is a profoundly elitist view, based on the assumption that virtually all women prefer to return to work, and that virtually all children benefit from early childcare education. As previously discussed, neither is true. Moreover, the cost of such a system, tens of billions of dollars, would be borne by taxpayers.

    What is never considered is changing the incentives so mothers do not feel so pressured to return to work. If income taxes were significantly reduced by, for example, allowing single income households to split their income between working and non-working parents, the pressure would ease. If the cost of childcare was tax deductible, it would help. If fuel excise plus GST did not take over half the cost of fuel, households would have more money for other purposes. If housing was not so heavily taxed and regulated by local, state and federal governments, there would be more houses at affordable prices. 

    Join Mailing List

    And if childcare was less regulated, with only those opting for early childhood education paying for it, the cost of ordinary childcare to mothers who genuinely need it would be more affordable. 

    As it stands, ECEC is a taxpayer-funded elite middle-class racket. Rather than hit taxpayers for ever increasing subsidies, the sector needs to be substantially deregulated.  Middle and upper-middle class families who expect gold-plated, diamond-encrusted childcare – with its university educated workers and low staff ratios – should pay for it themselves.

    Slaying the dragon of censorship.

    By
    Gerardine Hoogland
    -
    0

    Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

    This is the question the ancient Greek historian, Plutarch, asked in relation to the actions of the newly formed triumvirate of Octavian (soon to be Rome’s first emperor, Augustus), Antony, and Lepidus as they turned on their Roman countrymen in their quest for power in the final stages of the fall of the Roman Republic in 43 BC.

    It is a reasonable question to be asked of anyone aiming to assume leadership over their fellow citizens, no matter the period in history. That we have enough warnings of the traps which men fall into, should be uppermost in our minds when it comes to seeing our democracies as fair and reasonable.

    At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

    The most prescient warning, articulated in what I consider the best advice when setting up government, was penned by the Roman historian, Livy.

    “The study of history is the best medicine for a sick mind; for in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.”

    To the question of power, I argue that it is even more pertinent today in our modern liberal democracy, because we were led to believe that modernity has ushered in a more humane, decent, and enlightened way to conduct our lives. 

    Recent events, however, prove otherwise. 

    Much has been written about the powers sought by Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, to silence Australians as if we were kindergarten children who cry out for guidance at every turn in the playground. 

    By now we ought to be used to unfettered power being sought and wielded by senior bureaucrats; the recent four years of mandates and scare tactics being a prime example. But we should never get used to our political representatives further bolstering those powers without consulting the people first. 

    It is frightening to consider what might lay before us here in Australia, with the recent announcement by opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Liberal Party in government would introduce a ban on social media for children under 16 years of age. 

    This is the mainstream party that apparently espouses the values of individual liberty.

    Dutton says that facial recognition to determine somebody’s age is “appropriate.” That, therefore, would leave anyone over 16 needing to comply with this ultimatum if they want to have a social media presence.

    No doubt the government will call it “choice.” We will be told it is all in the name of safety; in this case, keeping children safe online. Nobody disputes the gold standard of being able to keep children safe from harm, but to punish law-abiding citizens by extinguishing their individual right to express themselves and associate with others in a peaceful way, is wrong. 

    Is there no wild beast more savage than man when his passions are armed with power?

    I guess we should consider ourselves fortunate compared to the punishment dished out in the ancient world. 

    As the Roman Republic lay dying in the late first century BC, Cicero offended Marc Antony in several of his speeches, declaring Antony an enemy of the state. 

    For his efforts of expressing views to save his beloved Republic from a would-be tyrant in Antony, Cicero had his head and hands cut off, the latter pinned to the rostra in the forum. It was said to be a reminder of what happens to those who disagree with the ruling elite of the day but it was, for Antony, a statement of revenge upon the man who consistently delivered powerful invectives against his character.

    At least we are only de-platformed, never to be seen in cyberspace again!

    But the words of Cicero are still as meaningful today as they were when he warned his fellow senators that “servitude is the worst of all evils.” 

    Join Mailing List

    It is with a degree of risk that we stand up publicly and declare his warnings today, but to do so with the eloquence of a man who is considered by many to have been Rome’s greatest politician, would be sweet indeed:

    “To be slaves to libertines, bullies, foul profligates, gamblers, and drunkards, that is the ultimate in misery joined with the ultimate in dishonour.”

    GST is Better than Income Tax

    By
    Duncan Spender
    -
    0

    In my last article I argued that a flat and broad-based income tax is much the same as a broad-based GST, so we have little reason to hate the concept of income tax more than the concept of GST. I argued this by setting out an imaginary scenario with five citizens, one business, and no government.

    But there is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better. I will argue this by adding an additional year to the imaginary scenario, and by honing in on three of the citizens – the three employees.

    Year 1

    In year 1 each employee earns a salary of $100,000, enough to buy 100,000 products at $1 each. 

    One employee is short-sighted and borrows $100,000 from another employee, who we will call the long-sighted employee. So in year 1 the short-sighted employee buys 200,000 products while the long-sighted employee buys nothing.

    Year 1 with no government

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$100,000 of salary, plus $100,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee$200,000 for 200,000 products
    The long-sighted employee$100,000 of salary, less $100,000 lent to the short-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$100,000 of salary$100,000 for 100,000 products

    To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent.

    Year 2

    In year 2 each salary is $104,030, but this amount now buys only 101,000 products because the product price has risen from $1 to $1.03.

    The salary of the short-sighted employee is transferred to the long-sighted employee to pay off the previous year’s debt. As such, the long-sighted employee buys 202,000 products in year 2, while the short-sighted employee buys nothing.

    Year 2 with no government

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$104,030 of salary, less $104,030 paid to the long-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The long-sighted employee$104,030 of salary, plus $104,030 paid by the short-sighted employee$208,060 for 202,000 products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$104,030 of salary$104,030 for 101,000 products

    Bring Out The Government

    Now imagine instead a scenario where there is a government, and let us assume the government’s taxation does not discourage the citizens from producing as much as in the absence of government.

    In year 1 the government demands enough money from the three employees to buy 60,000 products. The government could get the money via a 20 per cent income tax on the salaries of the employees.

    Year 1 with income tax

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$80,000 of after-tax salary, and $80,000 borrowed from the long-sighted employee$160,000 for 160,000 products
    The long-sighted employee$80,000 of after-tax salary, less $80,000 lent to the short-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$80,000 of after-tax salary$80,000 for 80,000 products
    Government$60,000 in tax$60,000 for 60,000 products

    In year 2, the government ups its demand, and now seeks enough money from the three employees to buy 60,600 products.

    If the government gets the money via income tax, it ends up taking more from savers compared to the amount taken from borrowers, and compared to the amount taken from those who neither save nor borrow.

    Consider the long-sighted employee, who lent $80,000 to the short-sighted employee in year 1, and who receives $83,452 from the short-sighted employee in year 2. 

    Year 2 with income tax

    Citizen…receives…and pays…
    The short-sighted employee$83,452 of after-tax salary, less $83,452 paid to the long-sighted employeeNothing for no products
    The long-sighted employee$83,452 of after-tax salary, plus $83,452 paid by the short-sighted employee, less $683 of tax on interest $166,221 for 161,379 products
    The take-it-as-it-comes employee$83,452 of after-tax salary$83,452 for 81,021 products
    Government$62,418 in tax$62,418 for 60,600 products

    The pre-tax income of the long-sighted employee in year 2 is $104,030 of salary plus $3,452 of interest, summing to $107,482. So the long-sighted employee has higher pre-tax income than the other employees, simply because of a deal struck between peers.

    There is an inherent difference between income tax and GST that makes GST better.

    To extract the money it demands, the government imposes an income tax rate of 19.8 per cent. The rate is lower than in year 1 because the government has dreamt up more income to tax than just salary income.

    The long-sighted employee pays more tax in year 2 than any other citizen ($21,261 compared to $20,578). The long-sighted employee ends up purchasing less than double what the take-it-as-it comes employee purchases, despite the long-sighted employee having gone without all purchases in year 1.

    This intrusion into the deal struck between the long-sighted employee and the short-sighted employee is how income tax punishes saving.

    Even if the long-sighted and short-sighted employees respond to the imposition of income tax by negotiating a change in the interest payment involved in their arrangement, this would just mean they share the punishment of deal-making meted out by income tax, a punishment that the take-it-as-it-comes employee avoids.

    As income tax penalises deal-making between savers and borrowers, while GST does not, income is inherently inferior to GST.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    123Page 2 of 3

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    A Serving of Humble Pie, Minister?

    Gerardine Hoogland - 6
    Arrogant and egotistical are the two words most equated with politicians. Australians who voted NO to enshrine race into our Constitution will no doubt confirm...

    Facing China with a Third Path: The Libertarian Road

    Where The Magic Happens

    The Censorship Industrial Complex – A Threat to Democracy

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv