These five quotes are from a speech delivered on 13 October 2022 in Australia by The Right Honourable Lord Jonathan Sumption, former senior judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
They go to explaining how our citizens invite authoritarianism, the cost of this, and what has held back despotism to date …
“In modern conditions, risk-aversion and the fear that goes with it are a standing invitation to authoritarian government”
“If we hold governments responsible for everything that goes wrong, they will take away our autonomy so that nothing can go wrong.”
“If we demand from the state protection from risks which are inherent in life itself, then the state’s measures will necessarily involve the suppression of some part of life itself.”
“The quest for security at the price of coercion and state intervention is a feature of democratic politics”
“It has only ever been culture and convention which prevented governments from adopting a totalitarian model. But culture and convention are fragile. They take years to form but can be destroyed very quickly. Once you discard them, there is no barrier left, the spell is broken. If something is unthinkable until somebody in authority thinks of it, then the psycological barriers which have always been our main protection against despotism have vanished.”
Our culture is becoming more risk-averse. Fear of risk grows. We’re apparently losing our grit, tenacity and adventurous spirit to manage our own risk. This manifests as a culture going soft with high-expectations that government will molly-coddle.
What then for us? How do we push back?
One fresh idea will be revealed on Liberty Itch this Thursday.
On Saturday, before the polls closed, I correctly predicted the Victorian election result.
My forecast wasn’t genius.
I’ve just been around politics a long, long time and see the perennial rules of the game.
Knowing the result is the easy part.
Discerning ‘why’, well, that’s another level of understanding again.
TV, newspaper and social media pundits are already misconstruing the ‘why’. Even the Victorian Liberal Deputy Leader, David Southwick MP, continues to misunderstand. “Labor dirty tricks”, he blurted wide-eyed on Sky Saturday night.
It was like looking into the eyes of a shocked and hapless kangaroo being ploughed dead in a political road-kill.
I’m going to say it until I’m blue in the face.
Parties lose elections when they have no philosophical framework. From the philosophy come the policies. The policies then improve people’s lives.
To put it another way, philosophy is the rationale. Policies are practical applications of that rationale.
The Liberal Party of Australia has lost its philosophical bearings. It is adrift in the political sea, allowing itself to be washed aimlessly by the currents and tides of its enemies. It’s tried to mollify the Extinction Rebellion. It’s preferenced the socialist Greens #2 on how-to-votes. It’s participated in wokery. It’s succumbed to populist fiscal ill-discipline. It’s appealed to proto-fascist Australia One.
Who is the Liberal Party anymore?
Philosophy matters.
So, let’s do a short, sharp review of basic philosophy regularly. We’ll call it Philosophy Monday and we’ll know why it’s vital to have a weekly dose.
We can start with my favourite guy, John Stuart Mill.
In the wake of Saturday’s disastrous result when it seems Victorians are turning their back on freedom, here’s what JSM (personal aside: he only allows friends to call him JSM *smile*) says in his famous hundred-page essay, On Liberty:
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities.
Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression.
Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by OTHER MEANS than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.
But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit – how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control – is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done.
As a movement of good people, we need to define the limit and enforce it.
First, we need to be crystal clear on our philosophical base.
It’s liberalism. You were born and live in liberal democracy. You’re a liberal, even if you don’t release it. Declare it. Proclaim it with muscular vigour. You’re a modern-day Whig, free-spirited independent or sleeper agent amidst Tories who can be convinced. Own your philosophy, now in it’s fourth century of application. It transformed the world. And if, like me, you’re a Christian too, rejoice! Our 2,022 year old Faith best flourishes in the freedom liberalism provides. They are a hand-in-glove as far as I’m concerned. Our free will is God’s gift to us. What we do with it is our gift to God.
Don’t retreat coddled and forlorn into that thumb-sucking emotional safe-space called ‘conservatism’. Do you honestly want to ‘conserve’ the vast apparatus of government long now installed by Labor, Liberal, National and Greens, marshalled to impinge your life, take your hard-earned money and close your churches? It needs an overhaul, a stripping back.
You need to be radical now, a buster of the collectivist status-quo, an agent provocateur: a forceful Thatcher, an illuminated Wilberforce.
No more tired Tories endlessly pessimistic about today and the future. We are in the fight of our lives and we need change!
Second, we need to work hard now on bold, innovative policies which give life to our philosophy. Where there is a friendly MP or two, we need to work together to organise.
Third, since we liberals control not one parliament currently, we must use “other means than civil penalties”. We need social tactics of our own to move the cultural needle.
To which “other means”, to what social tactics is Mill hinting?
Subscribe now and share Liberty Itch to discover what that means shortly and join the call-to-arms. Tell your friends. Spread the word. There is no time to lose.
In my last piece, Remembering Frederick Douglass, I discussed the evils and folly of centralised wage-fixing which, amongst other things, prevented people – young people in particular – from getting a start in the workforce; a foot on that first rung of the employment ladder.
Today, we look at centralized wage-fixing’s partner-in-crime – tariff protection. The other side of the micro-economic coin, if you like.
It was Bert Kelly (1912–1997) who once said, ‘The really bad ideas never go away’.
Bert Kelly. Member for Wakefield (Lib, SA). Leading advocate for free markets.
Along with centralised wage-fixing, protectionism is another of those really bad ideas.
The Australian settlement of 1900 was based on five key principles – two were economic, two were social and one was the imperial benevolence of the mother country.
The two social principles were the White Australia Policy and State Paternalism.
The two economic principles were regulated labour markets and tariff protection. These two went hand in hand. As centralised wage-fixing delivered arbitrary pay increases, thus increasing the cost of production, the price of the goods rose commensurately. As a result, imported goods became more competitive. In response, an import tax – a tariff – was placed on these imported goods to ‘protect’ Australian jobs from competition.
By the late 19th century, NSW had prospered under its free trade regime and had overtaken protectionist Victoria, becoming the continent’s leading colony. Following the collapse of the gold-rush, and to sustain its economy, Victoria borrowed heavily in the British capital markets but soon found itself impoverished and losing population – the consequences of 30 years of protectionism. NSW political leaders such as George Reid speculated that Victoria was desperate for federation so that its economic problems could be shared with the other colonies!
By the early 1920s, the newly-formed Country Party under Earle Page – influenced by the rural export industries of wool, meat and wheat – was officially opposed to protection, yet supported the Scullin Government’s belief that tariffs on imports would help restore employment during the Great Depression (1929–1932) by handing out tariffs virtually on demand. It didn’t work.
In 1930, Australian historian Keith Hancock had published his book Australia which contains this memorable reference to protectionism in Australia:
‘Protection in Australia is more than a policy: it is a faith and a dogma. Its critics, during the second decade of the twentieth century, dwindled into a despised and detected sect suspected of nursing an anti-national heresy. Protection is interwoven with almost every strand of Australia’s democratic nationalism. It professes to be a policy of plenty, but it is a policy of power.’
Bert Kelly arrived in Federal Parliament in 1958 as the Member for the South Australian seat of Wakefield and from then until he left the Parliament in 1977 fought a long and often bitter campaign against protectionism – first against a very powerful Deputy Prime Minister and Country Party Leader in John ‘Black Jack’ McEwen, and then against the strongly-defended populism of ‘protecting Australian jobs’.
Bert Kelly was opposed to protectionism because, like centralised wage-fixing, it was not only economically foolish, it was also morally wrong. It was wrong, he said, because it created a situation in which governments granted favours to some, who became greatly enriched, at the expense of others, who were at best impoverished and at worst, ruined.
On a parliamentary delegation to India, Bert visited a factory making bed sheets which wanted to sell in Australia but was unable to do so due to the high tariff (import tax) placed on imported bed linen. It was the same at an Indian shirt factory.
For example, a shirt made in Australia cost $50 to buy. An imported shirt $20. By imposing a $30 tariff on the imported shirt, consumers were told they had to pay $50 for a shirt to ‘protect Australian jobs’. If there were no tariff, however, and consumers were able to buy a shirt for $20 instead of $50, that would give them Bert argued, $30 to spend on something else. And it is that something else that is the catalyst for emerging industries.
Tariffs support declining industries, free trade supports emerging industries.
Bert also learned that Indians were desperate to buy Australian milk powder for their children but did not have the foreign exchange – Australian or US dollars – due to the insurmountable tariff on their textile goods entering Australia.
Thus, both India and Australia suffered. To quote Bert Kelly:
‘Australian dairy farmers can’t sell their skim milk powder, Australian families have to buy expensive ‘Australian-made’ sheets and shirts, Indian children don’t get milk and Indian factories can’t make textiles. A lose-lose situation if ever there was one. All this brought to you by our good and wise government’.
At the same time, Australia was giving aid money to India.
Bert spoke frequently in favour of Community Aid Abroad but against aid being given with no strings attached. ‘Trading with poor countries is a far better way to help them than giving them aid,” he argued.
With the union movement’s new friends in Canberra, expect to see more on the wages/tariff front.
Australia’s centrally planned economy is failing - intergenerational wealth gaps are widening, economic prospects are waning, and the side effects from the Reserve Bank’s...
