Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Random

    Philosophy

    Home Philosophy

    Other People’s Money

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    1

    Philosophy #1: Living On Other People’s Money Is Unwise

    When reading the news and opinion, I am frequently mindful of the idea of other people’s money and the perceptive words of French economist Frederic Bastiat, who wrote that “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”

    I thought of Bastiat when reading a recent opinion column by Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.  There really needs to be a better lexigraphy to reflect the differences between the economic writings of Bastiat and Gittins.  After all, we don’t call plumbers aquatic surgeons.

    Philosophy #2: Exploiting Other People’s Money Is Good

    In Gittins’ latest, he again advocates for higher taxes, because “… paying tax is good and, for better government, we should pay more”.  Evidence be damned, that ever more expensive government has delivered ever worse outcomes – from education, to health, to defence.  But for some, it is axiomatic that we must tax other people’s money more. 

    Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax.  But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.

    As long as it is other people’s taxes. The funny thing is that those who advocate higher taxes never seem to volunteer to pay higher taxes themselves.  No doubt, the ATO would accept voluntary contributions, but that is not the game.  Higher tax advocates don’t want to pay higher taxes themselves.  They just want other people’s money so that they can “live at the expense of everyone else” as Bastiat predicted.

    Call To Authority

    Gittins starts his case with a call to authority saying that “former top econocrat did something no serving econocrat is allowed to do, and no politician is game to do: he set out the case for us to pay higher, not lower, taxes.”  That former econocrat is Michael Keating (unrelated to Paul Keating) and he delivered his remarks at the Australia Institute’s revenue summit at Parliament House in Canberra.  That’s the Australia Institute that has never found a tax or regulation they did not like.

    Keating and Gittins are reflecting what is known as bureaucrat logic: that increasing input delivers better outcomes.

    Frederic Bastiat. Frugal with other people's money
    Classical liberal economist, Frederic Bastiat. He cautioned frugality with other people’s money.

    Permit some definitions:

    • Inputs are resources going in – such as dollars.
    • Outputs are things that are produced with the inputs – such as patients treated or students graduated.
    • Outcomes are the results – such as healthy citizens and kids who can read.

    But for some, it is axiomatic that taxes must be increased. 

    No Linear Relationship Between Inputs and Outcomes

    Bureaucrats, econocrats and many politicians seem to believe that, despite evidence upon evidence to the contrary, there is a linear relationship between inputs and outcomes.  Increase education spending and you get more literate kids.  Huge increases in Gonski funding delivering worse education outcomes is just a bump in the road.  Even more is required.

    Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax.  But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.

    Join Mailing List

    As American writer Harlan Ellison said: “The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.”  There seems to be a high concentration of both in Canberra.

    3 Wacky Crazy Ideas Creeping into International Politics

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    2

    This is Part 3 of my 3-Part series on geopolitics.

    You really need to read Part 1 and Part 2 before ploughing into this article.

    5 Ways To Maximise Peace In The World is Part 1. There, I gave you a menu of options for handling international politics. If you haven’t read it yet, go back and read it now.

    Then in Beware! This Article Channels The Ghosts of Locke, JSM, Friedman and Other Pugnacious Thinkers, we’ve double-checked the leading thinkers of our classical liberal-libertarian movement. I even chipped in with my opinion and asked for yours. Again, read it if you haven’t yet.

    Now, in this third and final part of the series on geopolitics, 3 Wacky Crazy Ideas Creeping Into International Politics, I’m going to eviscerate some of the more stupid ideas coming out of the commentariat. Then I’m going to tell you what positions any sensible thinking classical liberal or libertarian should have when it comes to international relations. Then a call to action.

    Australian libertarians need to be outwardly-focused, alliance-building policy advocates, and dedicated to early warning defence systems and a deterrent with punch.

    Ready? Let’s do it!

    Just to prove how centrist classical liberals and libertarians are, and how off-the-charts the Guardian is when it calls us ‘far right’, here are 3 Wacky Crazy Ideas Creeping Into International Politics, all which fall outside the Overton Window as far as I’m concerned:

    WACKY, CRAZY IDEA #1: NAÏVE, PEACEKEEPER, WHITE FLAG DEFENCE
    There are at least 11 senators in the Australian Parliament who, for whatever reason, believe non-aggression means we wait until a foreign-invader’s amphibious craft land on our beaches before we protect ourselves. They are called the Australian Greens. If they had their way, the Australian Defence Force would be relegated to fractional peacekeeper capacity. I have heard some in the freedom-movement, usually young and unschooled in the realities of a harsh world, a tiny group, who share this view. They don’t understand statecraft and chokepoint strategy.

    The threat to Australia isn’t from a landing on Bondi Beach. It’s the South China Sea shipping lanes through which passes critical fuel from South Korea on the way to our last two government-subsidised refineries in Brisbane and Geelong. A blockade for 53 days would deplete fuel reserves, preventing trucks from replenishing supermarket shelves. Imagine 25 million starving people in 53 days!

    And Australia has other chokepoints which could be squeezed from afar by a foreign actor.

    And in this regard, we depart from our US libertarian friends with isolationist tendencies, the ‘no foreign entanglements’ brigade. This might be arguable from the bosom of a 330 million populated, 5422 nuclear warheaded nation. For nuclear-free Australia with a 25 million population strewn across the same continental land mass, it just doesn’t fly. Australian libertarians need to be outwardly-focused, alliance-building policy advocates, and dedicated to early warning defence systems and a deterrent with punch. 

    WACKY, CRAZY IDEA #2: ANTI UN RHETORIC
    Can we just stop with the Ricardo Bosi conspiracy theories? Enough. The United Nations is absolutely worth keeping. In fact, it’s a great innovation of the liberal movement of which libertarians are front and centre. We just need to update its software. Classical liberals and libertarians are supporters of cooperative arrangements between nations whether free trade or to prevent of war. Stop with the nutjob UN bashing and start talking UN reform It is a voluntary organisation, not an Orwellian world government.

    WACKY, CRAZY IDEA #3: AN ACTUAL WORLD GOVERNMENT
    This is the biggest of the wacky crazy ideas. Can you imagine the horror of a ‘world president’, world laws, world surveillance, no reprieve from the totality of it all? We have enough of a problem with nation states. As I’ve said, the Structural Realist Theory sacrifices freedom for the security of a global Big Brother. Mad!

    A blockade for 53 days would deplete fuel reserves, preventing trucks from replenishing supermarket shelves. Imagine 25 million starving people in 53 days!

    A FOREIGN POLICY ON WHICH LIBERTARIANS SHOULD AGREE
    Australian libertarians ought to advocate the following positions on international relations:

    • A strong, technologically-advanced Australian Defence Force. Defence is a legitimate role of government. Let’s do it properly, building a domestically-located defence manufacturing capacity delivered by the private sector, space industry included;
    • Formally-negotiated and robust multi-lateral defence alliances including with Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines, Japan, South Korea, India, New Zealand, PNG, the Pacific Islands and of course the United States, the United Kingdom and the Anglosphere countries. Make clear that alliances will not be granted with countries which permit strategic advantage to apparent foes;
    • Instant free-trade agreements with those who become our formal allies;
    • The creation of a Preferential Alliance Citizenship. If a citizen of any of our formal allies wishes to migrate to Australia and has the skills we value, he is given preference. Let’s create a more cohesive cultural and economic region of strategic importance; 
    • Zero foreign aid to any country apart from our formal allies, if that be strategically advantageous;
    • Trade with our apparent foes, but no Preferential Alliance Citizenship;
    • A fresh look at the UN Security Council admission criteria.

    THE UNLIKELHOOD AND PRECIOUSNESS OF FREEDOM
    There are 195 countries in the world. Freedom House says 17 of these are true democracies, Australia being one of them. Corruption, tyranny and authoritarianism are the norm, not freedom. We need every possible strategy at our disposal to maintain our precious legacy and to hand it to our children.

    Join Mailing List

    Classical liberals and libertarians must continue to operate in the context of the world as it is. We must have our wits about us. We must cooperate and engage and project ourselves as a free people. We must negotiate and trade around the world for mutual benefit, lifting people out of poverty as we do it. We must find the common ground of our humanity. We must continue to show the greater part of ourselves and inspire those with whom we come into contact. We built this modern world. We continue to unlock human potential and flourishing. We must be open to those who value our freedom. We must also deter and resist those who don’t. We must neither aggress nor harm, but we also must not withdraw into the timid shadows of fear at yet another foe, for we have seen so many of them off. 

    If not entrepreneurial, nation-building classical liberals, if not liberty-loving, deep-thinking libertarians alert to coercion wherever it may lurk, who?

    Yeeks! The Numbers Don’t Lie

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    You and I can surely agree on a couple of points:

    First, free enterprise in a competitive market does 95% better in servicing the needs and desires of citizens than government. Better efficiency, better service delivery, better products, better time-frames, more innovation and less waste.

    Second, the free markets aren’t perfect. Businesses with whom you trade may become insolvent. Sometimes fraud occurs. At the very least, customers can sometimes be dissatisfied. It can take time, often not long, for the markets to self-correct. More efficient companies replace the defunct, reputation self-check fraud, and word-of-mouth handles companies with bad service or defective products.

    Third, the remaining 5% for government – and in my view its only role – is to adjudicate and protect fair dealings in the market. Government should be an umpire to maintain the free-wheeling clearing-house that is the aggregation of buyers and sellers. That’s it. Not a participant. An umpire.

    Fourth, the more of your hard-earned money the government taxes, the bigger government becomes by definition and the more it encroaches beyond the role of umpire. With ever larger budgets, government starts to become a player, even a team of players, as well as the referee! Your money, or more accurately your acquiescence to government taking it, provides the means for that encroachment, the loss of our original concept of government in a liberal democracy and, ultimately, the loss of liberal democracy itself.

    And fifth, there is a kind of sliding scale between 100% free market, laissez faire and, its opposite, 100% socialism. That large undefined region between these two poles has been called a ‘mixed economy’ in the West, starting with the introduction of ‘Keynesian economics’, the ‘welfare state’ and, later, the ‘central banking system’ which untethered our money from assets backing it.

    With me so far?

    Now the term ‘mixed economy’ gives our leaders a wide berth. An economy comprised of 95% private buyers and sellers with 5% government money to act as a referee to maintain the market is mixed of a sort. It’s like a drop of salt water in a fresh-water lake. But what happens if our leaders use your money to put their thumb of the scale? Let’s say, 90% private and 10% government. What about 75% private and 25% government? Take it further. What does an economy start to feel like at 51% private and 49% government? This is a mixed economy too. Now what was a pristine fresh-water lake is now brackish.  Every second transaction has all the inefficiency of a government department. Now imagine 25% private and 75% government. Three out of four transactions in the economy start to look and feel like you’re in a call-centre queue with the Australian Taxation Office or, in America, the IRS. Then they really stand on the scales: 5% private, just enough to sell a tentative surplus from your backyard vegetable garden, if lawlessness hasn’t destroyed it because those without a garden are starving.

    We cede far too much ground accepting a Keynesian ‘mixed economy’.

    The territory is too vast, ranging from one notch past efficient laissez faire to one notch short of Yugoslavia in 1981.

    You and I need a scorecard, in business-speak a key performance indicator, to judge where we are on this vast sliding-scale.

    And I have it.

    It’s called Government Expenditure as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product.

    To put it another way, it’s that part of the entire economy which is not sourced from free enterprise, the percent not generated by the efficient free-exchange of private buyers and sellers satisfying their own needs and desires. It’s the proportion of the economy in which government intrudes, displacing private transactions which would naturally and otherwise occur between you and me.

    It’s the economic cancer which ultimately kills a lively, flourishing society!

    So, let’s have a look at the statistic.

    And to make things interesting, let’s look at it over a long period, say since Australian Federation in 1901, and to really spice things up, let’s take the measurement at the end of each of the major ‘liberal’ governments. Once you see the figures, you’ll understand why I query their ‘liberal’ credentials.

    (Before I share this with you, understand it took 5 hours of research. These figures aren’t handed to you by government on a platter!)

    ·       Alfred Deakin (end of his third government): 5%

    ·       Robert Menzies (end of his second government): 17%

    ·       Malcolm Fraser: 26%

    ·       John Howard: 37%

    ·       Scott Morrison: 45%.

    You read that correctly.

    We’re all sitting in a saucepan of the slow-boil, simmering-ever-closer-to-socialism kind.

    A couple of thoughts. Alfred Deakin’s 5% was sufficient to build Australia’s navy, from nothing to formidable middle-power in two years. That’s Deakin doing the work of the umpire, protecting a free society from external threat. All good! Contrast that with today’s procurement bungles.

    Alfred Deakin. 2nd, 5th and 7th Prime Minister of Australia

    Further, the Whitlam, Hawke and Gillard governments must certainly have contributed a lot to this creep with general expansionism, Medicare and NDIS respectively.

    Liberty Itch will find out with year-on-year figures, so hold on to your subscription!

    In a sense though, it doesn’t matter.

    Had the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments wanted to reverse Labor overreach and get back to the Howard days of 37%, they could have. Had team Howard-Costello wanted to reverse possible Hawke-Keating expansion to return to 26% Fraser days, they could have. So on and so forth.

    The timeline is too long and the trend all in one direction to excuse any of them.

    All governments have been complicit.

    I’ll therefore make this bold and daring prediction. You can hold me accountable for it.

    By the time this Labor administration concludes, private will be less than government in our ‘mixed economy.’ We’ll be over the tipping point. Unless you and I pressure MPs, we’ll have 49% private and 51% government, or 45% private and 55% government.

    Should this trend continue, Australia will look like a 1970s dank Wilson-Callaghan economy which Thatcher had to revitalise. We’ll have more in common with a 1970s centralised State Dockyard economy of NSW Wran which Greiner had to unchain. We’ll feel more like 2020 than 1950 Detroit.

    There’s Australia’s KPI. We’re 45% socialist.

    You and I can at least agree that this is a worrying prospect deserving action.

    Retaining The Bargaining Chip of Indemnities For Vaccine Companies

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    4

    Should we legislate to stop a government offering indemnities to vaccine manufacturers?

    This was a matter which came before the Senate last week in a private members bill.

    Some of the reasons given for the Bill were:

    • “Companies work for shareholders first and it is profits that motivate their decision and actions. People should always be put before profits”;
    • “Indemnification has created an incentive for risk-taking in the pharmaceutical industry which is not aligned with the fundamental principles of medicine. Where indemnity exists, it is human nature to take larger risks, whether it be a conscious decision or subconscious, the outcomes are poor”; and
    • “The pharmaceutical industry has a taste for your money.”

    Vivid language for the impressionable mind!

    The most amicable and well-meaning of senators championed the cause with a rousing speech. A personal friend of mine adroitly negotiated it behind the scenes. It was a case study in politicking, and even attracted the support of one Libertarian state division.

    Then with the support of all but Labor, it went to committee for investigation and so will become news again soon. Yes, the centre-right crossbench attracted the Greens and even Senator Thorpe for a moment.

    What is not to love?

    Against such a juggernaut of consensus, this simple libertarian fig farmer has his misgivings. Have sympathy for me. It’s in my DNA to search for a principle.

    We libertarians are fond of paraphrasing John Stuart Mill’s 1859 Harm Principle with phrases like “live and let live, as long as you don’t harm others.”

    We are not so persistent in reminding our parliamentary friends that the Harm Principle requires that we ‘weigh such harms.’

    The great horror of the last 3 years was that our leaders did not do this. Ignore psychological damage to infant school children plastered with a mask. Ignore the cheap, unhealthy food on the dinner table of a family with dual incomes lost to mandates. Ignore the evaporated life savings of ‘non-essential’ small business owners. Ignore the suicides and mental health flair-ups caused by lockdowns. Ignore the business collapses.

    It was one flu-like covid-19 harm, all other harms be damned!

    One must weigh the harms.

    The problem with the Bill is that it applies a blanket ban and fails to weigh harms.

    Just say the next virus is more potent. Let’s say it’s Ebola or something with a 50% mortality rate!

    In the end, we need politicians who apply John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in full. Live and let live as long as you don’t harm others. When there are competing harms, weigh them and choose the least harmful option.

    I want our government to have the same commercial tool as any private sector party. Indemnification, or the transfer of risk, is used by outdoor adventure operators, mining equipment hire companies, and many others. Why ban the government?

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be able to transact like the private sector.

    As a libertarian, I prefer my government to be ready to act in the case of genuine pandemic threat. As established, I want the government to potentially offer indemnity to vaccine providers in the case of emergency.

    And as a libertarian, I want politicians who’ll use skilled negotiators so offering indemnity won’t be necessary.

    Further …

    As a libertarian, I’m unimpressed by populist attacks on free enterprise, especially pharmaceutical companies which keep us alive. As a libertarian, I’d be more curious to know why anyone believes a vaccine company should absorb near sovereign-level risk for a government intent on releasing vaccines before they pass the government’s own safety standards. As a libertarian, my focus is on that government maladministration, not the vaccine company.

    As a libertarian, I’d prefer my government weren’t both umpire, with its TGA vaccine approval processes, and player, being the acquirer and dispenser of vaccines. I’d prefer to eliminate this conflict of interest.

    As a libertarian, I’d like to rollback government from healthcare delivery, replace tired old public hospitals with private hospitals, and to protect charities which run hospitals.

    And as a libertarian, I’d prefer our allies in parliament did not run adrift philosophically into the dangerous and choppy waters of the anti-capitalist. I am left in little wonder why the Greens and Senator Thorpe kept the Bill alive.

    I believe the correct approach for a libertarian here is to vote against the Bill. In our current system, the Government needs to make it easy for vaccine production to occur in the event of a genuine calamity.

    Our government already has one hand tied behind its back running a socialised system. Let’s not tie the other one by banning the free-enterprise bargaining chip of indemnities.

    Why I Oppose The Voice

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    0

    Whether to oppose or support the Voice referendum is an easy decision for me. The proposal is fundamentally racist, and I’m a libertarian. Racism is a collective concept and simply incompatible with libertarianism.

    Libertarians see people as individuals, not as members of a group.

    The proposal is for people of the Aboriginal race to elect members of the Voice, which will have the right to give advice to the government and executive. Non-Aborigines will not have a vote for the Voice, and will have no comparable means of giving advice. Australians will thus be divided into two groups – Aborigines and non-Aborigines, with Aborigines having rights that non-Aborigines do not have. Moreover, by being in the Constitution, the Voice will have a status not held by any other advisory body.  

    Dividing people into groups, whether it is race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference, is collectivism.  It might be appropriate on occasions for statistical purposes, but it is not acceptable as a basis for government policy.  The only legitimate approach, to libertarians like me, is to treat people as individuals.

    That does not mean we lack concern for the welfare of Aborigines. Like Australians generally, we are distressed at the pathetic improvements revealed by the Closing the Gap surveys. Indeed, the third world conditions of Aborigines in remote regions is a national disgrace that I railed about regularly when in the Senate.

    And yet, there are plenty of Aborigines who participate in Australian society on the same terms as other Australians. They have jobs, are not poor, their children attend school, and they are not involved in substance abuse. Moreover, there are plenty of non-Aborigines who do not have jobs, are poor, abuse drugs, and neglect their children.

    Treating all Aborigines differently because some are poor and disadvantaged makes no more sense than treating non-Aborigines differently because some of them are poor and disadvantaged. The problem is that these issues exist, not the race of those who suffer them.

    Libertarians see people as individuals, not as members of a group.

    We share Martin Luther King’s dream, in which he hoped that one day his four little children would be judged on the basis of their character, not the colour of their skin.

    Racism is a collective concept and simply incompatible with libertarianism.

    Collectivism, which includes defining people by their race, is rejected. If someone is poor and disadvantaged, the appropriate response is to overcome the disadvantage that keeps them poor. This is true irrespective of the race of those concerned, or indeed any other collective characteristics with which they might be defined.

    Voting no to the voice referendum can be justified on several grounds, including the fact that it will seriously compromise the role of parliament once the High Court gets its hands on it. But for libertarians, the simple fact that it is based on racism is sufficient.

    ANSWER: The Carlson-Shapiro Question

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    I admit it.

    There I was on 27 February 2023, making a little mischief with my article:

    VOTE NOW! Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro?

    Well, it was mischief-making in the sense that I like to sharply define the line between liberal and conservative and then, with all the goodwill in the world, provoke people to think and explore these differences.

    There is a difference, you see.

    So I posted a video clip between American commentators Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro. They had opposing views of how to handle inevitable job losses caused by driverless trucks. It illustrated the difference eloquently.

    If you haven’t watched the exchange, click here.

    Then I challenged you to vote whether you agreed with Tucker Carlson or, by inference from his question, Ben Shapiro.

    The results are in:

    • 37% Tucker Carlson; and
    • 63% Ben Shapiro.

    If you agreed with Tucker Carlson, you are a conservative.

    If you agreed with Ben Shapiro, you are a liberal.

    As I repeat ad nauseum, conservatives wish to conserve. Here, Mr. Carlson would be happy to conserve current industry development rather than advance it. He’d be happy to keep truck drivers in jobs for which technology has a more efficient solution, the driverless truck.

    By inference from his question, Mr Shapiro would prefer to let the free market take its course, permit the technology and have truck drivers migrate into related freight work or even redeploy into other industries.

    There’s a big difference in approach.

    Liberals and conservatives are not the same.

    You’re an optimist if you’re a liberal (or if you must, a classical liberal or libertarian, they all mean the same thing!) You believe in people, in their ability to innovate and in their ability to adapt to change. In the case of driverless trucks, you fully embrace this new technology and you want to encourage the creators of that innovation by allowing it to be unleashed on the market. No restrictions. And you have faith truck drivers, given appropriate notice, are more than capable of finding new work. You are confident they aren’t simply going to sit and bemoan the loss of one type of occupation. Rather, you know they’ll have to find other work to feed their families, as we all do.

    You’re a pessimist if you’re a conservative. You believe, as Mr Carlson even said, that you don’t want high school educated men let loose on society without a job. He assumes that high school educated men would suddenly become helpless and even dangerous. That’s the inference.

    Blimey!

    Talk about loss of faith in our fellow citizens. It’s a nanny state attitude. What evidence is there for this? None that I can find. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence high school educated men are adaptable.

    Take 1980s Newcastle. A city bustling with blue collar men busily working the steelworks. Now look at 2020s Newcastle, a lifestyle, health and university town. What happened to these steelworkers? Was Newcastle ravaged by idle high school educated men wreaking havoc across the city? No. Some of these men were due to retire, some moved to the Wollongong works, some stayed in Newcastle moving into value-add niche industrial enterprises, some stayed in the large industrial companies but worked from home as the companies left, some started their own businesses using their skills in new ways, some simply moved into new industries altogether, some retrained, some took early retirement to enjoy life.

    Take my grandfather. He grew up and apprenticed as a wheelwright at the tale-end of the old wooden spoke and hub horse-drawn carts. Then as his career developed, wood gave way to steel spoke and hub wheels. Then steel plates came in. What a transition!

    Further, when a conservative says ‘let’s restrict technology’, what does that signal? It’s the same as saying to every inventor and innovator, every scientist and engineer, to every entrepreneur and free thinker that their fresh, new ways of solving old problems are unwelcome.

    Do we really want that?

    If we took that view, we wouldn’t have made these advances outlined in There Is Hope. Check This Out!

    Further ….

    We’d have no smartphones.

    No Internet.

    No wireless.

    No medical imaging.

    No open heart surgery.

    No computers.

    No electricity.

    No refrigeration.

    No cars.

    No flush toilets.

    No immunisation.

    No fresh, high-quality food.

    No sewerage works.

    No social mobility.

    No flowing, pure water to the bathroom sink.

    No glass.

    No books.

    No steel.

    No iron.

    No bronze.

    No wheel!

    As I say, conservatism’s tendency to oppose change can be helpful. However, if that’s all we on the Right do is oppose and conserve, we end up sliding to the Left. Opposition and conservation are insufficient to fight the Left.

    We must treat our innovators with respect and let them advance society. We must not be conservative and stand in the way.

    We must treat our fellow citizens with respect, have confidence in them that they can cope with change. We should not mollycoddle them.

    Don’t be a conservative like Mr. Carlson.

    Be a classical liberal like Mr. Shapiro in this debate.

    This is the way forward.

    5 Quotes From Lord Jonathan Sumption

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    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.

    What John Stuart Mill Says We Should Do Next

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    2

    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.

    Share Liberty Itch

    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.

    See. The philosophers show the way.

    Philosophy Monday. Done!

    There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    1

    Although commonly attributed to Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman, the expression “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” long predated him.

    In fact, it described the practice of saloons (bars) offering a “free” lunch to patrons who purchased at least one drink.  The luncheon was generally high in salt (cheese, salted crackers, nuts), enticing patrons to purchase generous volumes of high-priced beer.  If you weren’t paying attention, and fell for the trap, you wound up paying much more for the “free lunch”.  The exploitation of a cognitive bias leads to over consumption (eg cheap and poor quality food) and over payment (eg through purchase of excess beer). 

    Which brings us to Australia – the land of the free and home of the expensive.  Not free as in freedom, but free as in government delivered services including healthcare and education that are perceived to be free.  And as with the salty food, there is over consumption and excessive cost.  Like the free lunch, Australians do not get free healthcare or education.  Every single one of us pays; just in a different way.

    Healthcare is funded through the Medicare levy and general taxes at the State and Commonwealth level, including income tax and GST.  So, whether you are a billionaire or on welfare, you are paying taxes that fund healthcare. And because healthcare is presented as “free”, there is inevitable overconsumption and waste.

    Prof. Milton Friedman

    Referencing Milton Friedman again, he observed that there are essentially four ways to spend money:

    • You can spend your own money on yourself.
    • You can spend your own money on someone else.
    • You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself.
    • You can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.

    When you spend your own money on yourself, you are very careful because you are looking for value. You won’t be as careful when you spend your own money on someone else, but you will look for value.

    When you spend somebody else’s money on yourself, you are more interested in making your life comfortable than achieving value, but you will at least expect to gain a benefit.

    Healthcare falls into the fourth category, of spending other people’s money on somebody else. There is no incentive to pursue value at all.

    While we pretend healthcare is free, in reality it is bureaucrats in offices spending other people’s money on others. That includes finding new ways to expand their domain. 

    Consider the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.  According to its 2021-22 annual report, at 30 June 2022

    • It employed 5,154 persons – up from 4,450 the year prior,
    • These staff cost $697 million – up from $559 million the year prior, and
    • Its operating expenses were $1.3 billion – up from $1.1 billion the year prior.

    All this and yet the department did not operate a single hospital or aged care facility.

    According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (a government body), in 2020-21, total health spending in Australia was over $220 billion of which over 70% was government (Commonwealth, State, and Territory).  That does not sound very free. 

    A government commissioned review also found that perhaps 10% of the Medicare program was subject to waste and fraud. Why?  Perhaps because governments are spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.

    This is not to suggest that there would be no government health expenditure if this charade of free healthcare was ended.  It might however lead to a much more responsive and cost-efficient system.  Consider how much lower taxes could be, or how much higher pensions might be, but for the inefficiency and waste of Australia’s “free” healthcare system.

    We are told by Professor Duncan Maskell, the Vice-Chancellor (CEO) of the University of Melbourne,  that “one of the most important radical changes that could be made to facilitate this would be once more to make education free to the Australian domestic student”.  Australia already has an over-production problem of university graduates, and Maskell’s proposal would make it even worse.  Why?  Because universities would be spending somebody else’s money on somebody else.

    To make university education “free to the Australian domestic student” would require someone else to pay for it, including those who do not and will never attend university.  It wouldn’t be free; it would just be paid for by someone else.

    If Professor Maskell, who is reported to be on an annual salary package of $1.5 million, really wants to make university cheaper and/or free for students, he should first look in his back yard.  According to the Melbourne University annual report, in 2022 it had approximately 53,000 students and employee related expenses of $1.6 billion. That’s approximately $31,000 per student.  It would certainly make the cost of education much lower if Professor Maskell and all his staff worked for free.

    Free Will, Libertarians and Easter

    By
    Kenelm Tonkin
    -
    0

    Sam Harris does not believe ‘free will’ exists.

    He believes we are creatures playing out compulsive, repetitious behavioural cycles like any other animal and, like them, we just don’t realise it.

    Except for him.

    He knows what none of us can see, apparently.

    He has elevated himself above the primal, it is suggested we acccept.

    Forgive my skepticism.

    On the contrary, I see ‘free will’ exercised daily, at life’s inflection points and in our beliefs.

    We are free agents, individuals making an individual’s decision, not some kind of habitual, near-clone automatons.

    ‘Free Will’: individuals’ ability to decide independently of evolutionary reflex

    Daily ‘Free Will’

    We exercise ‘free will’ daily in the decisions we make: walk across the road now or when the cars come, read a chapter of a book now or later or not at all, compliment a person or not. This is obvious.

    ‘Free Will’ At Life’s Inflection Points

    We exercise ‘free will’ at great inflection points in our lives when long-lasting, significant decisions are made: a marriage, a move overseas, a decision to start volunteering for a charity for the next ten years, the ascent of a rugged mountain.

    When a child is born, is it preordained that this individual would go on to a life of crime or become a Rhodes Scholar? No. A million choices are made along life’s path to reach that point.

    Daily and at life’s inflection points, ‘free will’ is exercised.

    So too with our belief systems.

    ‘Free Will’ In Our Beliefs

    The more counter-intuitive our belief systems, the more likely we are to be free agents and individuals making an individual’s decision.

    It’s easy to follow the herd. Not much ‘free will’ in that.

    The more unusual or challenging the ideas we embrace, the less likely we are some kind of habitual, near-clone automaton and the more evidence there is that we are NOT creatures playing out compulsive, repetitious behavioural cycles like any other animal.

    The harder to understand or more complicated our beliefs, the less likely our adherence to them is an evolutionary reflex. Unusual or radical ideas have to be formed, absorbed and finally proactively accepted. This all takes prodigious helpings of ‘free will’.

    Let me give two examples of counter-intuitive belief systems which prove ‘free will’ is in play.

    First, in the political realm, classical liberal and libertarian principles.

    Adam Smith. Classical Liberal.

    In a world of predictable, herd-following progressive versus conservative debates, our views are counter-intuitive and don’t fit their narrative. Our ideas take discipline to apply. We have to constantly think to hold true to them. We are exercising ‘free will’ just to maintain philosophical consistency. In a Left-Right world, we are thinking outside the box and reshaping the political landscape as an Authoritarian-Libertarian world.

    Does this sound like the product of an automaton in a matrix, or thinking individuals weighing a fresh and exciting political philosophy?

    It smacks of individual thinking and ‘free will’ to me.

    Second, in the religious world, Christian faith.

    Do you want an example of a mind-bender of a belief, a counter-intuitive thought which takes all of our ‘free will’ – all of us – to absorb and embrace?

    OK. I’ll give you one, timely since today is Good Friday:

    “For God so loved the world that he gave us his only Son,
    that whoever shall believe in him, shall not perish but have eternal life.”

    Tell me that doesn’t take a large dose of ‘free will’ to accept! Let’s call this idea what it is: über radical! There’s nothing automatic or mundane about this concept. To truly accept the idea, there can be no coercion, only free-thinking and a big leap of faith, individuals making an individual’s decision on a concept well outside the norm.

    As I meet more and more classical liberals and libertarians, I become less and less surprised that so many happen to be Christians in their private lives. Of course, you don’t have to be a Christian to be libertarian. The former is a personal moral code, the latter a political one. But, wow, there are a lot of Christian libertarians. Start with the most famous: Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul. Christian Libertarian.

    None of us should be shocked by this.

    Libertarian and Christian ideas are for the free-thinker. Both are challenging to apply. Both respect the dignity of the individual. Both call for personal responsibility. Both respect those who’s lives we touch. Both require the exercise of ‘free will’ and both will be judged on the decisions made with the ‘free will’.

    This is a very different person from a conservative who trades on Christianity with words like “I am a cultural Christian. I believe in Judeo-Christian values” but doesn’t even believe let alone go to church on Easter, the singular most important day on the Christian calendar.

    No, in my experience, libertarian Christians not only have a parish church and attend on Easter Day, but are actually in the leadership groups of their local church. No virtue signalling over it. Just belief and quiet action. They work hard in their local communities and volunteer because, as one of many reasons, the act of charity is authentic not the act of being charitable with other people’s money.

    The inherent tension built into the idea that you should live freely as long as you don’t harm another, John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle, mirrors the ‘free will’ Biblical narrative from the consequences of free choice in Eden to the consequences of choosing to submit in Gethsemane.

    These are not ideas for mere creatures playing out compulsive, repetitious behavioural cycles like any other animal.

    Rather, these are daring, challenging ideas for the enlightened free-thinker.

    Sam Harris is wrong. ‘Free will’ is everywhere and Easter service awaits you this Sunday.

    How will you use your ‘free will’?

    123Page 1 of 3

    Popular Posts

    My Favorites

    5 Dangerous Blind-Spots In ‘Yes’ Arguments (Part 1)

    Kenelm Tonkin - 10
    "Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is...

    The Danger To Society of the Public Health Industry

    FREE! The Kerry Packer Classical Liberal Masterclass

    Enemy of the state

    Popular Categories

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv